Ojo v. Decker
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-03221-LTS
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ojo v. Decker, Chief Judge McMahon transferred the detainee’s constitutional-rights case from New York to New Jersey without deciding its merits.
Olukayode David Ojo’s case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey. The transfer also affected the named Department of Homeland Security officials, but the court did not decide the claims against them.
What happened
In Ojo v. Decker, Olukayode David Ojo, who was detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, brought a case without a lawyer under a Supreme Court decision allowing certain constitutional claims against federal officials. He alleged that events at the Elizabeth Detention Center violated his constitutional rights.
The court found that New York was not clearly the proper location because the events occurred in New Jersey and the case did not concern detention or immigration proceedings in New York County or elsewhere in the district. It also found that the records and relevant defendants were likely in New Jersey.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under the federal transfer statute. The court closed the case in New York, did not issue a summons, and did not decide whether Ojo’s claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Ojo v. Decker · No. 1:20-cv-03221-LTS
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 28, 2020
Background
Olukayode David Ojo, who was detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights at the Elizabeth Detention Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey.
Ojo named Thomas Decker, Thomas E. Feeley, and John Tsoukaris, identified in the opinion as field director officers for the Department of Homeland Security in New York, Buffalo, and Newark. He also named assistant field officer directors for those offices. The opinion says the court assumed Ojo named Feeley because he was detained at the Buffalo facility and Tsoukaris because the claims concerned the Elizabeth facility. The court said it was not clear why Ojo named officials employed at the New York Field Office because he was not detained in New York County and his immigration proceedings were not held in a county within the Southern District of New York.
Venue and Transfer
The court explained that venue—the proper federal district for a case—is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. It concluded that venue did not appear proper in the Southern District of New York under the provisions concerning where defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events occurred.
The court also considered 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a federal court to transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court noted that the events occurred in Elizabeth, New Jersey; that the defendants connected to the Elizabeth facility most likely lived in New Jersey; and that records concerning Ojo’s detention there would likely be located in that district. It concluded that venue was proper in the District of New Jersey and that the total circumstances supported transfer.
Disposition
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The order closed the case in the Southern District of New York, stated that a summons would not issue from that court, and left any decision about allowing Ojo to proceed without prepaying fees to the transferee court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The court transferred the case without deciding the underlying constitutional claims. The opinion also states that Ojo had not submitted a prisoner authorization form, but that it was unclear whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act applied to him.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.