Peterkin v. Quick Chill Food Services

Background

Kahene Peterkin, who was incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility, filed a complaint alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional right to adequate medical treatment for a thyroid condition. He proceeded pro se, meaning without a lawyer, and in forma pauperis, meaning he was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. After an earlier order identified deficiencies, Peterkin filed an amended complaint naming Dr. Lee, Benjamin Oakes, and Carl Koeningsman.

Peterkin alleged that Dr. Lee denied his request for a soy allergy test at Shawangunk Correctional Facility. He alleged that, after he returned to Southport Correctional Facility, Oakes denied the request because Peterkin had not reported an allergy to soy when he arrived. Peterkin also alleged that he complained to Koeningsman but received no response. The opinion describes his broader allegations concerning thyroid nodules, denial of a soy-free diet, a later thyroidectomy, and continuing medication and blood testing.

Screening standard

The court reviewed the amended complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires screening of prisoner complaints against governmental entities or their personnel. The court explained that such a complaint may be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or is filed where the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. It also explained that complaints filed by people without lawyers are read liberally, but still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Venue analysis

The court focused on venue rather than deciding whether Peterkin’s medical-treatment allegations were legally valid. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue may be proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. Peterkin alleged that relevant events occurred at Southport Correctional Facility, Shawangunk Correctional Facility, and in Albany, New York. The court identified those locations as being in counties within the Northern or Western Districts of New York and stated that none of the defendants appeared to be located in the Southern District.

The court said it was unclear whether venue was proper in the Southern District because Peterkin was not required to allege, and might not know, where the defendants lived. It concluded that the case could have been filed in either the Northern District or the Western District under the provision covering where the events occurred.

Order

Judge Colleen McMahon stated that the court was inclined to transfer the case to the Western District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer in the interest of justice. The court ordered Peterkin to show cause within 30 days why the case should not be transferred. Alternatively, he could move to voluntarily withdraw the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). If he failed to respond and could not show good cause for that failure, the case would be transferred. The court did not transfer or dismiss the case in this order, and directed that no summons issue at that time.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal.