Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 1, 2021

Makinano v. Jaddou

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:21-cv-10111
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
ImmigrationCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Makinano v. Jaddou, Judge Swain transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York for improper venue.

Who this affects

Bonafacio Aguja Makinano’s lawsuit was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York; the Eastern District would decide whether he could proceed without prepaying filing fees.

What happened

In Makinano v. Jaddou, Bonafacio Aguja Makinano sued the director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services over agency actions involving petitions he filed for his two adopted minor children living in the Philippines.

The court said Makinano did not show that the Southern District of New York was the proper venue. Because he lives in Queens County, which is in the Eastern District of New York, and no real property was involved, the court found that the Eastern District was the only clearly proper venue.

Judge Swain ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York. She also said that court would decide whether Makinano could proceed without paying filing fees, denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order, and closed the action in the Southern District of New York.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Makinano v. Jaddou · No. 1:21-cv-10111
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Dec. 1, 2021

Background

Bonafacio Aguja Makinano, representing himself, sued Ur Mendoza Jaddou in her official capacity as the director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, an agency subdivision of the Department of Homeland Security. The lawsuit concerned USCIS actions and decisions involving Makinano’s petitions for alien relatives, known as I-130 petitions, filed for his two adopted minor children who reside in the Philippines.

The court understood the complaint as seeking an order requiring government action under the federal mandamus statute or relief under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Venue analysis

Venue is the legally proper federal court location for a lawsuit. The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), which permits certain actions against federal officers or agencies in a district where the defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events or omissions occurred, or, when no real property is involved, where the plaintiff resides.

Makinano stated that he resides in Elmhurst, in Queens County, New York. Queens County is in the Eastern District of New York. He did not provide facts showing that the Southern District of New York was a proper venue: he did not identify where Jaddou resides or where a substantial part of the relevant events or omissions occurred. The court also found that no real property was involved.

Disposition

The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the federal statute allowing transfer when venue is improper. The order did not decide the merits of Makinano’s claims. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether Makinano could proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court directed that no summons issue from the Southern District of New York and closed the action in that court.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. It also directed the Clerk to mail Makinano a copy of the order and record service on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.