Friedeberg v. The Postmaster of Norwich
Donna L. Friedeberg v. The Postmaster of Norwich, CT; The Roman Catholic Psychiatrist of Norwich
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-08245
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Friedeberg v. Postmaster, Judge Swain transferred the case to Connecticut because New York was an improper venue.
Donna L. Friedeberg’s case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the District of Connecticut; the underlying claims were not decided.
What happened
In Donna L. Friedeberg v. The Postmaster of Norwich, CT, Friedeberg, representing herself, sued the Norwich postmaster and a person she called the Roman Catholic psychiatrist of Norwich. The opinion says her claims appear to concern delayed or missing newspaper deliveries and events in Connecticut.
The court concluded that the Southern District of New York was not the proper place for the case. Friedeberg and both defendants appeared to reside in Connecticut, and the alleged events appeared to have occurred there.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain transferred the action to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in the interest of justice. The New York court did not decide the underlying claims; the Connecticut court will decide whether Friedeberg may proceed without paying filing fees. The New York court also directed that summonses not issue and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Friedeberg v. The Postmaster of Norwich · No. 1:25-cv-08245
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 16, 2025
Background
Donna L. Friedeberg filed the action without a lawyer against “the Postmaster of Norwich” and “the Roman Catholic Psychiatrist of Norwich.” The opinion says her claims against the postmaster appear to arise from the United States Postal Service’s alleged failure to deliver, or promptly deliver, copies of The New York Post for which she had paid a subscription. The opinion does not describe the claims against the psychiatrist in more detail.
Friedeberg had not paid the filing fees or submitted an application to proceed without prepaying them. The court stated that deciding whether she could proceed without prepaying fees would be left to the court receiving the case.
Venue Analysis
The court applied the federal venue statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and § 1391(e). It explained that venue for claims against the postmaster in an official capacity or while acting under legal authority could be based on where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, for claims not involving real property, where the plaintiff resides. Venue for claims against the postmaster in an individual capacity and for claims against the psychiatrist could be based on where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if necessary, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.
The court stated that Friedeberg resides in Connecticut and appeared to allege that both defendants also reside there. It further stated that the alleged events appeared to have all occurred in Connecticut, with nothing suggesting that they occurred in the Southern District of New York. Because Connecticut is one federal judicial district, the court concluded that the District of Connecticut—not the Southern District of New York—was the only proper venue.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may dismiss a case filed in the wrong venue or, when justice requires, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The order closes the action in the Southern District of New York, and summonses will not issue from that court.
The court did not reach the merits of Friedeberg’s claims. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.