Atkinson v. In the matter of the State of New York

Background

Anthony Atkinson, a civil detainee at the Central New York Psychiatric Center, brought this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims against state actors for alleged constitutional violations. His claims concerned a 1996 New York state conviction, later civil confinement under Article 10 of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law, and mental-health treatment at the Manhattan Psychiatric Center.

Atkinson sought release from custody and money damages. In his original complaint, he challenged the conviction and civil commitment and alleged inadequate mental-health treatment. The court’s April 3, 2020 order stated that a request for release should instead be made through a federal petition challenging custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, after available state remedies had been exhausted. That order also stated that the original complaint did not identify defendants personally involved in violating Atkinson’s rights and did not state a viable § 1983 claim about treatment at the Manhattan Psychiatric Center. The court allowed him to amend.

Amended Complaint and Venue

Atkinson’s amended complaint named Albany officials from the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and the New York State Office of Mental Health, assistant attorneys general, psychologists, a Mental Hygiene Legal Services attorney, a corrections officer at Gouverneur Correctional Facility, and staff members of the Manhattan Psychiatric Center. He sought release based on alleged interference with his efforts to pursue federal custody relief and to challenge the Suffolk County conviction. He sought damages based on the alleged untimeliness of his Article 10 probable-cause hearing and allegedly inadequate mental-health treatment at the Manhattan Psychiatric Center.

The Southern District directed Atkinson to explain why the case should not be transferred. The court noted that the only claims arising in the Southern District—those concerning treatment at the Manhattan Psychiatric Center—had already been dismissed on the merits. In response, Atkinson supplied more facts about his claims involving the conviction and Article 10 proceedings in Suffolk County, but he did not explain why venue was proper in the Southern District or why transfer would not serve the interests of justice.

The opinion also referred to a prior related federal custody proceeding and later efforts to reopen it, without resolving those matters in this transfer order.

Ruling

The court held that venue lay in the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), which concerns where claims substantially arose. It ordered the action transferred there under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a statute allowing transfer when a case was filed in the wrong federal district. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Atkinson, note service on the docket, and transfer the action. A summons was not to issue from the Southern District, and the order closed that case. Judge Louis L. Stanton did not decide the underlying conviction, confinement, or damages claims in this transfer order.