Coston v. Onondaga County Justice Center
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11525
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Coston v. Onondaga County Justice Center, Judge McMahon transferred the pro se legal-mail case to Northern District of New York for venue and convenience.
Rashod Coston and Derrick Harris, the self-represented plaintiffs, were affected by the transfer of their case from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of New York. The named defendants were also affected by the change of court.
What happened
Coston v. Onondaga County Justice Center involved Rashod Coston and Derrick Harris, who were incarcerated at the Onondaga County Justice Center and alleged that defendants tampered with their legal mail. They filed the case in the Southern District of New York without providing defendants’ addresses.
The court said the events occurred in Onondaga County and that most defendants appeared to reside there. Because Onondaga County is in the Northern District of New York, the court found that venue was proper there and that transferring the case served convenience and the interests of justice.
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk to transfer the case to the Northern District of New York. The Southern District case was closed, no summons was issued there, and the court denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The court did not decide the allegations about legal mail.
The detailed version
- Coston v. Onondaga County Justice Center · No. 1:19-cv-11525
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 30, 2019
Background
Rashod Coston and Derrick Harris filed a pro se action, meaning they represented themselves, against the Onondaga County Justice Center and other named defendants. They were incarcerated at the Onondaga County Justice Center and appeared to allege that defendants tampered with their legal mail there. The plaintiffs labeled their filing a “Notice of Order to Show Cause and Inherent Affidavit of Support Thereof.” They did not provide addresses for the defendants.
The opinion notes that the plaintiffs had filed a similar complaint in this court earlier. In that earlier round, the court determined that venue was proper in the Northern District of New York and transferred the action there. The court denied the plaintiffs’ objection to that transfer without prejudice to refiling it in the Northern District.
Venue and Transfer
The court explained that federal venue generally is proper where all defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. The alleged events occurred at the Onondaga County Justice Center in Onondaga County, New York. Although the plaintiffs did not provide defendants’ addresses, most defendants appeared to reside in Onondaga County. The court therefore concluded that venue did not appear proper in the Southern District under the general venue rules.
The court also stated that, even if venue were proper in the Southern District, federal law permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Courts may order such a transfer on their own initiative. The court considered the location of the events, the plaintiffs’ incarceration in Onondaga County, and the apparent location of most defendants. Onondaga County is within the Northern District of New York.
Disposition
The court concluded that transfer was appropriate and ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The order closed the case in the Southern District of New York. It also directed the Clerk to mail the order to the plaintiffs and note service on the docket. Whether the plaintiffs could proceed without paying filing fees was left to the transferee court, and no summons was to issue from the Southern District.
Judge Colleen McMahon certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order transferred the case; it did not resolve the plaintiffs’ allegations about legal-mail tampering.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.