Panchitkaew v. NY State Attorney General
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09686
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Panchitkaew v. NY State Attorney General, Judge McMahon transferred the pro se civil-rights case to the Eastern District of New York because Nassau County was central to the claims.
Marut Panchitkaew and the defendants are affected because the action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The transferee court, rather than the Southern District, would decide whether Panchitkaew could proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
Marut Panchitkaew, representing himself, sued government entities, officials, and other defendants under a federal civil-rights law, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. He said venue was proper in the Southern District of New York because at least one defendant lived there, but he did not allege that substantial events occurred there.
The opinion states that most underlying events occurred in Nassau County, where Panchitkaew and most defendants lived. It also notes that he had related, ongoing litigation in the Eastern District of New York.
Judge Colleen McMahon transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York in the interest of justice. The Southern District case was closed, no summons would issue from that court, and the transferee court would decide whether Panchitkaew could proceed without paying filing fees; the court also denied that status for purposes of any appeal.
The detailed version
- Panchitkaew v. NY State Attorney General · No. 1:19-cv-09686
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 17, 2019
Background
Marut Panchitkaew, a resident of Levittown, New York, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The defendants named in the caption include federal, state, county, and city entities and officials, as well as private individuals. Panchitkaew alleged that defendants violated his rights on “countless occasions” and that government entities he contacted failed to help or investigate his complaints.
Panchitkaew filed the original complaint on October 21, 2019, and an amended complaint on November 27, 2019. He asserted that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York because at least one defendant resided there, but he did not allege that a substantial part of the relevant events or omissions occurred in that district.
The opinion also describes related litigation in the Eastern District of New York. In that earlier proceeding, Panchitkaew alleged that defendants unlawfully harassed him, arrested him, and confined him to a psychiatric facility. The Eastern District consolidated those cases, and the related matter remained pending. The opinion further states that the Federal Bureau of Investigation intervened in that proceeding and successfully moved to quash a subpoena.
Transfer analysis
Venue is the proper federal court location for a case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue may generally be based on where defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that venue was proper in the Eastern District of New York because most of the underlying events occurred in Nassau County and because Panchitkaew had related ongoing litigation there.
The court also analyzed transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits a federal court to move a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Courts consider factors including the location of the events, the convenience of the parties and witnesses, access to evidence, the availability of compulsory process, the parties’ resources, the court’s familiarity with the governing law, the plaintiff’s forum choice, trial efficiency, and the overall interest of justice.
Disposition
The court concluded that transfer was appropriate based on the totality of the circumstances and directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order states that the Southern District action was closed. It also states that the transferee court would decide whether Panchitkaew could proceed without prepaying fees, and that no summons would issue from the Southern District of New York.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order transferred the case and did not decide the underlying constitutional claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.