Harris v. Tonkin

Background

Keeba Scott Harris, who was detained at Norristown State Hospital in Norristown, Pennsylvania, brought this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She alleged that she was falsely imprisoned at the hospital. The caption names Raymond Tonkin, Craig Lowe, and other defendants. The order also refers to Jessica Keith, whom Harris described as having her in unauthorized custody, but notes that Keith was not named as a defendant in the complaint’s caption.

The order further notes that Harris may have been trying to raise claims concerning a pending criminal matter in Pike County, Pennsylvania, and that she appeared to have filed actions in the federal court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The opinion does not resolve those possible claims.

Venue analysis

Venue is the legally proper federal court location for a lawsuit. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue generally is proper 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 authority.

The court found that Harris did not allege that any defendant resided in the Southern District of New York or that a substantial part of the events occurred there. Because the alleged events occurred in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, the court concluded that venue was proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under § 1391(b)(2).

Disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The clerk was directed to mail Harris a copy of the order, record service, and transfer the action. The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Harris could proceed without prepaying filing fees. No summons was to issue from the New York court, and the order closed the case there.

Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the truth of Harris’s false-imprisonment allegations.