Norman v. John/Jane Doe
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-04349
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Norman v. John/Jane Doe, Judge McMahon transferred the case to Texas because New York was not the proper venue.
Terell Norman, the self-represented plaintiff, is affected because his action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Southern District of Texas. The opinion does not identify the defendant or decide the underlying claims.
What happened
Norman, who was representing himself and incarcerated at Rikers Island, brought claims about events that occurred while he was in Texas Department of Criminal Justice custody. The opinion says he did not identify where in Texas the events occurred or name any defendants.
The Southern District of New York ruled that venue was not proper there because Norman did not allege that the events happened in that district. It concluded that venue was proper in the Southern District of Texas because the claims concerned his Texas custody and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice is headquartered there.
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of Texas under the federal venue-transfer statute. The New York court closed the case, directed that no summons issue from that court, left any decision about proceeding without prepaying fees to the Texas court, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Norman v. John/Jane Doe · No. 1:20-cv-04349
- Colleen McMahon
- July 8, 2020
Background
Terell Norman, proceeding without a lawyer and currently incarcerated at Rikers Island, brought claims concerning several events that occurred while he was in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). The opinion states that Norman did not specify where in Texas the events occurred and did not name any defendants.
Venue analysis
The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil action to be brought where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or, if neither applies, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York because Norman did not allege that any event or omission giving rise to his claims occurred there.
The court further concluded that venue lay in the Southern District of Texas under the provision allowing an action to be brought where a substantial part of the events occurred. The claims arose from events related to Norman’s custody by TDCJ, which the opinion states is headquartered in Huntsville, Texas. Huntsville is in Walker County, and Walker County is within the Southern District of Texas.
Disposition
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the federal statute authorizing transfer when venue is improper. The Clerk was directed to mail Norman a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The order states that whether Norman may proceed without prepaying fees would be decided by the transferee court, and that no summons would issue from the Southern District of New York. The order closed the case in that court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Colleen McMahon did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.