Middlebrooks v. United States
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-02762
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Middlebrooks v. United States, Judge McMahon transferred the pro se plaintiff’s action from New York to New Jersey.
Lado Middlebrooks and the United States. The action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey; the transferee court was left to decide whether Middlebrooks could proceed without prepaying filing fees.
What happened
In Middlebrooks v. United States, Lado Middlebrooks, who was detained at the Essex County Correctional Facility in Newark, New Jersey, brought constitutional claims against the United States and sought to represent other federal detainees. He filed the case without a lawyer.
The court explained that venue rules allowed the case to proceed in the District of New Jersey because Middlebrooks was detained there and the events underlying his claims occurred there. The court also stated that a person representing himself cannot bring claims for other people.
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The Southern District of New York closed the case, did not issue a summons, left the decision about proceeding without prepaying filing fees to the transferee court, and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Middlebrooks v. United States · No. 1:21-cv-02762
- Colleen McMahon
- Apr. 6, 2021
Background
Lado Middlebrooks, who was detained at the Essex County Correctional Facility in Newark, New Jersey, filed a complaint without a lawyer against the United States. He asserted constitutional claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics based on events at that facility. He also sought to bring claims on behalf of all federal detainees.
The opinion states that Middlebrooks could not represent other federal detainees because a person appearing without a lawyer may represent only himself. The court did not decide the merits of his constitutional claims.
Venue and transfer
The court applied the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, to the Bivens claims. It stated that venue was arguably proper in the Southern District of New York under the provision concerning where a defendant resides, but that venue was also proper in the District of New Jersey because Middlebrooks was detained there and the events underlying his claims occurred there.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court concluded that transfer to the District of New Jersey was appropriate.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and to mail Middlebrooks a copy of the order. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether Middlebrooks could proceed without prepaying filing fees. The Southern District of New York ordered that no summons issue and closed the case.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order was issued by Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.