Grant v. Adult Protective Service
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-00891
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Grant v. Adult Protective Service: Judge Swain transferred the pro se plaintiffs’ case to the Eastern District of New York for convenience and justice.
Elizabeth Grant and Grace Grant, the named defendants, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which will receive the transferred action.
What happened
In Grant v. Adult Protective Service, Elizabeth Grant and Grace Grant, representing themselves, alleged that the defendants violated their rights in Queens County, New York. The case was filed in the Southern District of New York.
The court found that the Eastern District of New York was a proper venue because the alleged events occurred in Queens County. It also found that likely witnesses and relevant documents were there, making transfer appropriate for the convenience of the parties and in the interest of justice.
Judge Swain ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York and closed the case in the Southern District of New York. That court, rather than the transferring court, will decide whether the plaintiffs may proceed without paying filing fees. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order and directed that no summons issue from the Southern District of New York.
The detailed version
- Grant v. Adult Protective Service · No. 1:22-cv-00891
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 4, 2022
Background
Elizabeth Grant and Grace Grant brought this action without lawyers. They alleged that the defendants violated their rights in East Elmhurst, Queens County, New York. The defendants named in the opinion include Adult Protective Services, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the New York City Police Department, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Elmhurst General Hospital, and several individuals.
Venue and Transfer
The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil action to proceed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. The court concluded that the Eastern District of New York was a proper venue because the alleged events occurred in Queens County. Although the Southern District of New York could also be an appropriate venue, the court considered transfer appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
The court noted that the alleged events occurred in Queens County and that relevant documents and witnesses were likely located there. Based on the overall circumstances, it transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The transfer was ordered by the court on its own initiative.
Disposition
The Clerk of Court was directed to transfer the action to the Eastern District of New York, and the order closed the case in the Southern District of New York. The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether the plaintiffs could proceed without prepaying fees. It directed that no summons issue from the Southern District of New York. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal from the order. The opinion did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.