Friedeberg v. Police Department of Norwich Connecticut
Donna L. Friedeberg v. Police Department of Norwich Connecticut; State Police Force of Connecticut
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-08224
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Friedeberg v. Police Department of Norwich Connecticut, Judge Swain transferred the case to Connecticut because New York was not a proper venue.
Donna L. Friedeberg and the two Connecticut defendants; the case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the District of Connecticut.
What happened
Donna L. Friedeberg sued the Police Department of Norwich, Connecticut, and the State Police Force of Connecticut. She filed the case in the Southern District of New York and represented herself. The court said Friedeberg resides in Connecticut, both defendants are located there, and the alleged events appear to have occurred there.
The court ruled that the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue under the federal venue rules. It found that the District of Connecticut was the only proper venue and transferred the action there in the interest of justice instead of dismissing it. The opinion also notes that Friedeberg did not sign her complaint.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the clerk to transfer the action to the District of Connecticut and closed the case in New York. She said the receiving court must decide whether Friedeberg may proceed without paying filing fees; no summons would issue from the New York court, and fee-free appeal status was denied.
The detailed version
- Friedeberg v. Police Department of Norwich Connecticut · No. 1:25-cv-08224
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 10, 2025
Background
Donna L. Friedeberg brought this action without a lawyer against the Police Department of Norwich, Connecticut, and the State Police Force of Connecticut. The opinion states that Friedeberg is a Connecticut resident and that both defendants are located in Connecticut. It also states that the events underlying her claims appear to have occurred entirely in Connecticut. A footnote says that Friedeberg did not sign her complaint.
Venue analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the federal statute governing the proper location for a civil case. It concluded that the District of Connecticut was a proper venue because all defendants were located there and Connecticut is one federal judicial district. The court also concluded that the District of Connecticut was proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims appeared to have occurred there. The opinion states that Friedeberg alleged nothing suggesting that any relevant events occurred in the Southern District of New York.
Disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case is filed in the wrong venue, a court may dismiss it or, in the interest of justice, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in the interest of justice. It directed the clerk to make the transfer and stated that the action was closed in the Southern District of New York. The court left to the receiving court the question whether Friedeberg could proceed without prepaying filing fees, and stated that no summons would issue from the New York court. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.