Herrera v. Shea
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-05893
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Herrera v. Shea, Judge Ramos transferred Herrera’s civil-rights action to the Eastern District of New York for convenience and the interests of justice.
Victor M. Herrera and the defendants named in the complaint, including NYPD and Human Resources Administration officials; the action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York.
What happened
In Herrera v. Shea, Victor M. Herrera, representing himself, sued police officers and Human Resources Administration officials under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that officers restrained, searched, detained, and arrested him at and near an agency office in Brooklyn, and that officials retaliated against him. He sought money damages and an order requiring the defendants to do something.
The court said the events occurred in Brooklyn and that most defendants involved in them appeared to have addresses in Brooklyn or Uniondale, both in the Eastern District of New York. Although venue might also have been proper in the Southern District of New York, the court concluded that transferring the case would better serve the parties, witnesses, and the interests of justice.
Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the Eastern District of New York and close the Southern District case. The court did not decide whether Herrera’s constitutional claims were valid, and it denied permission to appeal without paying fees because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Herrera v. Shea · No. 1:20-cv-05893
- Edgardo Ramos
- Aug. 6, 2020
Background
Victor M. Herrera filed a complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against people who violate constitutional rights while acting under state law. The court had previously allowed Herrera to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Herrera alleged that, on December 19, 2019, at a New York City Human Resources Administration office on the fifth floor of 150 Boerum Place in Brooklyn, HRA employees summoned police officers from the 84th Precinct. According to the complaint, the officers pushed Herrera against a wall, restrained and searched him, and publicly paraded him. The officers later released him and returned his property. Herrera alleged that, as he walked toward the subway, HRA officers Knox, Henna, and Vasquez, along with an unidentified NYPD officer, restrained and arrested him again.
Herrera also alleged that supervisory defendants retaliated against him for petitioning for relief and tolerated retaliation connected to his reform activities and complaints. His claims included false arrest, unlawful detention and confinement, retaliation, conspiracy, deliberate indifference, cruel and unusual punishment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, discrimination, denial of equal protection, assault and battery, unreasonable search and seizure, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He requested money damages and injunctive relief.
Transfer Analysis
The court discussed the general federal venue statute, which permits a civil action in certain districts based on where defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. The court noted that the complaint did not provide facts about where the individual defendants were domiciled.
The court nevertheless determined that venue was proper in the Eastern District of New York because the events occurred in Brooklyn and the complaint listed Brooklyn and Uniondale addresses for individuals directly involved in those events. The court also said venue was arguably proper in the Southern District because the complaint listed Manhattan addresses for supervisory defendants and alleged that they tolerated retaliation there. One defendant had an Albany address, which the court noted falls within the Northern District of New York.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court may order such a transfer on its own initiative. It considered the circumstances as a whole, including the location of the events and the apparent locations of most defendants directly involved. The court concluded that transfer to the Eastern District of New York was appropriate.
Disposition
The Clerk of Court was directed to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and the Southern District case was closed. The order was procedural: it addressed venue and convenience, not whether Herrera’s claims were legally or factually meritorious.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying fees. Judge Edgardo Ramos signed the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.