Molina v. James
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-02971
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Molina v. James, Judge Ramos transferred Molina’s case to the Eastern District of New York because the Southern District was not the proper venue.
Juan Carlos Molina’s case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The order concerned venue and did not resolve the claims against the defendants.
What happened
In Molina v. James, Juan Carlos Molina, representing himself, challenged his 1982 Nassau County conviction and sought damages against several defendants, including Letitia James, Madeline Singas, the Estates of Rosalind Gurwin and Joseph Gurwin, and a federal insurance company identified as “John Doe.”
The court found that Molina did not allege that any defendant lived in the Southern District of New York or that a substantial part of the events occurred there. Because he alleged that substantial events occurred in Nassau County, the court concluded that the Eastern District of New York was the proper venue.
Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered the Clerk to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York and closed the case in the Southern District. The court also denied Molina permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Molina v. James · No. 1:21-cv-02971
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 12, 2021
Background
Juan Carlos Molina brought this pro se action challenging his 1982 Nassau County conviction and seeking damages. He sued Letitia James, identified as the Attorney General of the State of New York; Madeline Singas, identified as the District Attorney of Nassau County; the Estates of Rosalind Gurwin and Joseph Gurwin; and “John Doe – Federal Insurance Company/Chubb Group.” The opinion states that Molina paid $402 in filing fees.
Venue analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which identifies where a civil action may be filed. The court found that Molina did not allege that any defendant resided in the Southern District of New York or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred there. The Southern District therefore was not a proper venue under § 1391(b)(1) or (2).
Molina did allege that a substantial part of the relevant events occurred in Nassau County. Because Nassau County is in the Eastern District of New York, the court concluded that venue was proper there under § 1391(b)(2). The court also noted that, to the extent Molina sought relief concerning his Nassau County conviction, the Eastern District was the proper venue for those claims.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The order closed the action in the Southern District of New York; it did not decide the merits of Molina’s challenge to his conviction or his request for damages. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.