George v. 17 Judicial District

Background

Christopher Tyson Anthoney George, who appeared without a lawyer, brought claims under the court’s diversity jurisdiction against the 17 Judicial District, District Attorney’s Office and the State of Louisiana Department of Children & Family Services. The opinion states that George alleged both defendants were located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and that the events or omissions underlying his claims occurred in Louisiana, likely in Baton Rouge. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in greater detail.

Venue analysis

The court applied the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). That statute generally allows a civil action to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The court found that George did not allege that either defendant resided in the Southern District of New York or that the relevant events occurred there. Because Baton Rouge is in the Middle District of Louisiana, the court determined that the Middle District of Louisiana was the proper venue.

Ruling

Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which permits transfer when venue is improper. The order closed the Southern District of New York case, directed that no summons issue from that court, and stated that the transferee court would decide whether George could proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.