Chisolm-Mitchell v. Advantage Care Physician
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-05468
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Chisolm-Mitchell v. Advantage Care Physician, Judge McMahon transferred the constitutional-rights case to the Eastern District of New York for venue and convenience.
Donna M. Chisolm-Mitchell and David A. Chisolm-Mitchell, who must pursue the action, if permitted by the transferee court, in the Eastern District of New York rather than the Southern District of New York. The defendants are Doctor Najma Ahmed, Advantage Care Physician, and Detective Raymond Abear.
What happened
In Chisolm-Mitchell v. Advantage Care Physician, Donna M. Chisolm-Mitchell and David A. Chisolm-Mitchell brought a lawsuit without lawyers under a federal civil-rights law, alleging constitutional violations. They challenged events in Forest Hills and Jamaica, in Queens County, and listed work addresses for the defendants in Queens County.
Judge McMahon found that the Southern District of New York did not appear to be the proper venue because the defendants and the events were connected to Queens County. The court also concluded that transferring the case would serve the parties, witnesses, and the interests of justice because Queens County is in the Eastern District of New York.
Judge McMahon ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York and closed the case in the Southern District of New York. The transferee court will decide whether the plaintiffs may continue without paying filing fees; no summons will issue from the transferring court, and fee-free status was denied for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Chisolm-Mitchell v. Advantage Care Physician · No. 1:20-cv-05468
- Colleen McMahon
- July 27, 2020
Background
Donna M. Chisolm-Mitchell and David A. Chisolm-Mitchell sued Doctor Najma Ahmed, Advantage Care Physician, and Detective Raymond Abear of the New York City Police Department's 112th Precinct. They proceeded without lawyers and brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of federal constitutional rights. The complaint concerned events in Forest Hills and Jamaica, both in Queens County, New York. The plaintiffs listed work addresses for the defendants in Queens County.
The court noted that although both Donna M. Chisolm-Mitchell and David A. Chisolm-Mitchell were listed as plaintiffs, only Donna M. Chisolm-Mitchell signed the complaint and the application to proceed without prepaying fees.
Venue and Transfer Analysis
Venue is the proper federal court location for a lawsuit. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue generally may be based on 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 stated that venue did not appear proper in the Southern District of New York because the plaintiffs did not allege that the defendants resided there or that a substantial part of the relevant events occurred there. The court explained that even if venue were proper, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
The court considered the connection between the case and Queens County, including the location of the events, the plaintiffs' residence, and the defendants' work locations. Queens County is in the Eastern District of New York. Based on the total circumstances, the court concluded that transfer to that district was appropriate and in the interest of justice.
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 to mail the order to the plaintiffs. The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether the plaintiffs could proceed without prepaying fees. A summons would not issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the case in that court.
The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.