Coston v. Commissioner of N.Y.S.D.O.C.C.S.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00080
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Coston v. Commissioner, Judge McMahon transferred the plaintiffs’ civil-rights case because venue was improper in the Southern District of New York.
The plaintiffs’ lawsuit was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Western District of New York. The transferee court would decide whether the plaintiffs could proceed without prepaying filing fees.
What happened
In Coston v. Commissioner of N.Y.S.D.O.C.C.S., the plaintiffs, who were incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility and represented themselves, brought a civil-rights lawsuit under federal law concerning events at Elmira.
The court ruled that venue was improper in the Southern District of New York because the plaintiffs did not allege that any defendant lived there or that events underlying their claims occurred there. Because the claims arose in Chemung County, the court determined that venue belonged in the Western District of New York.
Judge Colleen McMahon transferred the action to the Western District of New York under the federal venue statute. The Southern District case was closed, no summons was issued there, and the transferee court would decide whether the plaintiffs could proceed without paying filing fees. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Coston v. Commissioner of N.Y.S.D.O.C.C.S. · No. 1:20-cv-00080
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 17, 2020
Background
Rashod Coston and other plaintiffs, who were incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility in Chemung County, New York, brought a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that the defendants violated their rights at Elmira. The opinion does not describe the underlying alleged violations in detail.
The plaintiffs apparently argued that the Southern District of New York was a proper venue because of the parties’ citizenship. The court explained that this confused the rules governing venue with the separate rules governing federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. The court stated that the parties did not appear to be diverse because some or all of them resided in New York.
Venue analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue generally may lie where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if neither of those options is available, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction for the action. The court found that the plaintiffs did not allege that any defendant resided in the Southern District of New York or that any event or omission underlying their claims occurred there.
Because the claims arose in Chemung County, which is in the Western District of New York, the court determined that venue was proper there under § 1391(b)(2). The court therefore transferred the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the statute allowing transfer when a case is filed in the wrong venue.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York and to mail the order to the plaintiffs. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether the plaintiffs could proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court also directed that no summons issue from the Southern District of New York and stated that the order closed the case there.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Colleen McMahon signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.