Johnson v. Town of Onondaga

Background

Robert W. Johnson, appearing without a lawyer, filed an action against the Town of Onondaga, the New York State Department of Transportation, the City of Syracuse, New York State, and the New York State Department of Transportation. He alleged that he was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Syracuse, New York, on February 3, 2017, and that he suffered multiple injuries and disabilities. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The opinion described Johnson’s litigation history, including several other actions concerning motor vehicle accidents and insurance-related matters. It also noted that another judge had previously directed Johnson to explain why he should not be barred from filing future cases without paying fees unless he first obtained permission, and that Johnson had not submitted the required declaration in that matter.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the federal venue rules. Those rules generally permit a civil action to be filed 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 authority. The court found that the events alleged in this complaint occurred exclusively in Syracuse, in Onondaga County, and that Johnson did not allege that a substantial part of the events occurred in the Southern District of New York.

The court therefore concluded that venue was improper. Under the federal venue statute, a court may dismiss a case filed in the wrong district or transfer it if transfer would serve the interests of justice. In light of Johnson’s litigation history, the court found that transfer to the Northern District of New York was not in the interests of justice. It also concluded that the complaint’s deficiencies could not be corrected by amendment.

Rulings and procedural consequences

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed Johnson’s complaint without prejudice for lack of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The court did not decide whether Johnson’s underlying accident-related allegations were legally valid. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Johnson, and the matter was to remain open until a civil judgment was entered.

The court separately ordered Johnson to show cause within 30 days why he should not be barred from filing any further actions in that court without paying fees unless he first obtained the court’s permission. Johnson was required to submit a declaration explaining why the proposed filing restriction should not be imposed. The order stated that if he did not submit the declaration on time, or if it did not show good cause, the restriction would take effect. The court did not impose that restriction in this order itself; it ordered Johnson to respond before deciding whether to do so.

Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.