Giron v. Trump

Background

Jesus Giron filed a pro se action concerning his confinement at the Etowah County Detention Center in Gadsden, Alabama. He alleged that he contracted COVID-19 because officials at the detention center failed to take necessary precautions to prevent the virus from spreading. He named the Etowah County Sheriff, President Donald Trump, and various federal agencies and officials as defendants.

The opinion states that Giron asserted both federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. It also states that he invoked the Torture Victim Protection Act, the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and other civil-rights statutes.

Venue Analysis

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which identifies the federal districts where a civil action may be filed. One provision permits filing where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. The court concluded that the alleged violations occurred at the Etowah County Detention Center in Etowah County, Alabama.

The court found that Giron did not allege that all defendants resided in New York or that a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claims occurred in the Southern District of New York. Because Etowah County is in the Northern District of Alabama, the court concluded that venue was proper there under § 1391(b)(2).

Disposition

The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the statute allowing transfer when venue is improper. The Clerk was directed to transfer the case and mail the order to Giron. The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Giron could proceed without prepaying filing fees. No summons was to issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the case there.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Judge Colleen McMahon’s order addressed venue and transfer; it did not decide the merits of Giron’s underlying claims.