Foster v. The State of New Jersey
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-04454
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Foster v. The State of New Jersey, Judge Vyskocil transferred Foster’s case from New York to New Jersey without deciding his constitutional claims.
Jonathan Foster’s case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey; the New York court did not decide his claims or emergency-relief request.
What happened
Foster v. The State of New Jersey concerns Jonathan Foster’s lawsuit against New Jersey, Tiffany DeGrandmaison, Donna Taylor, and Chris Hoffner. Foster, who represented himself, alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights after his arrest in New York on a warrant issued in New Jersey.
Judge Vyskocil found that New York did not appear to be the proper location for the case because the defendants were listed at New Jersey addresses and Foster did not allege that the events underlying his claims occurred in New York. The court also concluded that New Jersey was a more appropriate location because the warrant, later incarceration, and criminal proceedings appeared connected to New Jersey.
Judge Vyskocil ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The New York court issued no summons and closed the case; it did not decide whether Foster was entitled to emergency relief or whether his constitutional claims were valid. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Foster v. The State of New Jersey · No. 1:21-cv-04454
- Vyskocil
- May 25, 2021
Background
Jonathan Foster, appearing without a lawyer, brought what the opinion describes as a diversity action by an order to show cause. He alleged that the State of New Jersey, Prosecutor Tiffany DeGrandmaison, Administrator Donna Taylor, and Attorney Chris Hoffner violated his constitutional rights. Foster alleged that he was arrested in New York on a warrant issued in New Jersey. He listed New Jersey addresses for the defendants.
Venue analysis
The court first discussed the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). That statute generally permits a civil action to be filed where the defendants reside, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.
The court stated that venue did not appear proper in the Southern District of New York because Foster did not allege that the defendants resided there or that a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying his claims occurred there. The court then considered transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a federal court to transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court explained that it could order such a transfer on its own initiative.
The court concluded that transfer was appropriate based on the totality of the circumstances. Although Foster alleged that his arrest occurred in New York, he stated that the arrest was based on a warrant issued by New Jersey. The court stated that it therefore appeared that any later incarceration occurred in New Jersey and that the criminal charges were adjudicated there. It also stated that all defendants were located in New Jersey, making venue proper in the District of New Jersey.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The court stated that whether Foster was entitled to emergency injunctive relief—a court order requiring or preventing action—would be decided by the receiving court. The Southern District of New York did not rule on the merits of Foster’s constitutional claims. It directed that no summons issue from that court and stated that the order closed the case there.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.