Battle v. Warden of Craven Correctional Institution
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-03078
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Battle v. Warden of Craven Correctional Institution, Judge McMahon transferred the case to North Carolina because venue was improper in her court.
Fredrick Alan Battle, the plaintiff, whose action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of North Carolina; the opinion does not decide his constitutional claims.
What happened
Battle v. Warden of Craven Correctional Institution is a lawsuit by Fredrick Alan Battle, who was incarcerated at Craven Correctional Institution, alleging that correctional officers violated his constitutional rights.
The court determined that the claims arose from Battle’s confinement in Craven County, North Carolina. Because he did not allege that a defendant lived in the Southern District of New York or that important events occurred there, the case could not remain in that district.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. She directed the clerk to close the case in her court, ordered that no summons issue there, and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Battle v. Warden of Craven Correctional Institution · No. 1:20-cv-03078
- Colleen McMahon
- Apr. 20, 2020
Background
Fredrick Alan Battle, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a constitutional-rights action against the Warden of Craven Correctional Institution. The opinion states that Battle was incarcerated at that institution in Vanceboro, North Carolina, and that his claims concerned alleged violations by correctional officers at the facility.
Venue analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the federal statute governing the proper federal court location for a civil case. Under that statute, a case generally may 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 personal jurisdiction.
The court found that Battle did not allege that any defendant resided in the Southern District of New York or that a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying his claims occurred there. Instead, the claims arose from his confinement in Craven County, North Carolina. The court stated that Craven County is in the Eastern District of North Carolina and that venue therefore lies there.
Ruling and effect
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The court also directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Battle, stated that no summons would issue from the Southern District of New York, and ordered that the case be closed there.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The opinion does not decide the merits of Battle’s constitutional claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.