Shivananjappa v. Bhayani

Background

Nanda Shivananjappa brought this pro se action against Rajendra Bhayani. She invoked diversity jurisdiction and sought unspecified damages, along with immediate and permanent injunctive relief. The opinion states that Shivananjappa resides in Piscataway, New Jersey, and that Bhayani resides in Brooklyn, New York. The opinion describes Bhayani as the father of Shivananjappa’s child.

Venue analysis

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the federal venue statute. It concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York because Shivananjappa did not allege that Bhayani resided there or that the events or omissions underlying her claims occurred there. The court found that the Eastern District of New York and the District of New Jersey were both proper venues.

The court determined that transfer to the Eastern District of New York was appropriate because Bhayani resided in Brooklyn and at least some events giving rise to the claims took place there. It therefore transferred the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which permits transfer when a case is filed in an improper venue.

Disposition

The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and stated that the order closed the action in the Southern District of New York. It directed that a summons not issue from the Southern District of New York. The transferee court was left to decide whether Shivananjappa could proceed without prepaying fees, whether to grant immediate injunctive relief, and whether to seal the action.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion also states that the Clerk limited electronic access to certain pleadings because they included identifying information covered by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.