Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 4, 2022

Fantasia v. Blinken

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:21-cv-11075
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEmploymentPro Se
In one sentence

In Fantasia v. Blinken, Judge Swain transferred the employment case to Washington, D.C., because venue was improper in New York.

Who this affects

The action brought by Edward C. Fantasia against Anthony Blinken was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The transferee court must address any request to proceed without prepaying fees and any request for volunteer counsel.

What happened

In Fantasia v. Blinken, Edward C. Fantasia, representing himself, sued Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in his official capacity. Fantasia alleged age-discrimination and German-law claims connected to his employment at American consulates in Düsseldorf and Munich, Germany.

The court found that venue was proper in the District of Columbia because Fantasia alleged that Blinken resides there. The court also found that Fantasia did not allege that either party resides in the Southern District of New York or that substantial events connected to the claims occurred there.

Judge Swain ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under federal venue law. The New York court closed the action there, did not issue a summons, left fee and appointed-counsel decisions to the transferee court, and denied fee-free appeal status because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fantasia v. Blinken · No. 1:21-cv-11075
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 4, 2022

Background

Edward C. Fantasia, an American citizen who resides in Germany, filed this action without a lawyer. He asserted claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and German law arising from his employment at American consulates in Düsseldorf and Munich, Germany. He sued Anthony Blinken in his official capacity as Secretary of State.

Venue analysis

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), which allows a civil action against a federal officer sued in an official capacity in certain districts, including one where the defendant resides. For venue purposes, a natural person resides where that person is domiciled.

Fantasia alleged that Secretary Blinken resides in Washington, D.C. The court therefore found that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was a proper venue. The court found that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York because Fantasia did not allege that he or Blinken resided there, or that a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying the claims occurred there.

Ruling and effect

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The order closed the action in the Southern District of New York, and a summons was not to issue from that court. The transferee court was to decide whether Fantasia could proceed without prepaying fees and whether a request for volunteer counsel should be made.

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. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.