Fredericks v. Detective John Doe
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-11043
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Fredericks v. Detective John Doe, Judge Stanton transferred Fredericks’s civil-rights action from Manhattan to the Eastern District of New York because its events and defendants were in Brooklyn.
Nigel N. Fredericks’s action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The order affected the litigation location for Fredericks and the named defendants but did not decide the merits of his claims.
What happened
In Nigel N. Fredericks v. Detective John Doe, 75th Precinct, Fredericks brought claims about false arrest and excessive force under a federal civil-rights law. He was representing himself and had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The Southern District of New York said the case appeared to have improper venue there because the events occurred solely in Brooklyn and Fredericks did not allege that the defendants lived in that district. The court also found that transferring the case to the Eastern District of New York served the parties, witnesses, and interests of justice because Brooklyn is in that district.
Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the Eastern District of New York, mail the order to Fredericks, and record service. The order closed the Southern District of New York case; it did not decide whether Fredericks’s claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Fredericks v. Detective John Doe · No. 1:20-cv-11043
- Louis Stanton
- Mar. 4, 2021
Background
Nigel N. Fredericks filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state or local officials. He alleged false arrest and excessive force arising from events that occurred solely in Brooklyn. The opinion states that Fredericks was incarcerated, represented himself, and had been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The amended complaint named police officers and detectives associated with the 75th Precinct in Brooklyn.
Venue
Venue concerns the federal district where a case may properly be litigated. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue generally may be proper where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events occurred. The court concluded that venue did not appear proper in the Southern District of New York because Fredericks did not allege that the defendants resided there and the events underlying his claims occurred solely in Brooklyn.
Transfer analysis
The court also considered 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It stated that courts may order such a transfer on their own initiative and considered the totality of the circumstances. The court emphasized that the underlying events occurred in Brooklyn, where most defendants appeared to reside, and that Brooklyn is in Kings County, within the Eastern District of New York. It concluded that the Eastern District of New York was a proper venue and that transfer was appropriate even assuming venue had been proper in the Southern District of New York.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Clerk was also directed to mail a copy of the order to Fredericks and note service on the docket. The order closed the Southern District of New York case. The opinion did not reach the merits of the false-arrest or excessive-force claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.