Volovets v. Trump

Background

Naum I. Volovets filed this case without a lawyer against U.S. President Donald J. Trump, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, U.S. Attorney General William Barr, and U.S. Chargé d’Affaires ad interim to Ukraine Kristina Kvien. He alleged violations of federal constitutional rights and rights under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). He requested FOIA relief, damages, declaratory relief, and additional injunctive relief.

Because all defendants were federal officers, the court understood the complaint as seeking relief under FOIA, the federal mandamus statute, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the legal claim recognized by Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

Venue analysis

For the claims under the mandamus statute, the Administrative Procedure Act, and Bivens, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). That statute permits certain suits against federal officers or agencies in a district where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or—when no real property is involved—where the plaintiff resides. The court also considered FOIA’s venue provision, which permits a records case in the district where the complainant resides or has a principal place of business, where the agency records are located, or in the District of Columbia.

The court found that Volovets resides and has his place of business on Staten Island in Richmond County, New York. Richmond County is in the Eastern District of New York, not the Southern District of New York. Volovets did not allege that any defendant resides in the Southern District, that a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred there, or that the relevant records are located there. He also did not specify where in the United States the events occurred or where the records were located.

Ruling

The court concluded that the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue for any of Volovets’s claims and that the Eastern District of New York was the only federal district court that was a proper venue for all of them. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Judge Liman directed the Clerk of Court to make the transfer and stated that the order closed the action. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fees for an appeal. The opinion did not decide whether Volovets’s constitutional or FOIA allegations were legally valid.