Ally v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Background

Jonathan Michael Omar Ally brought a complaint against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the National Football League, the United States of America, McDonald’s, Temple University, Patriot News, and Tom Wolf. He alleged a wide range of mistreatment in Pennsylvania, including conduct by law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, Temple University, and others. He also appeared to allege employment discrimination by Chipotle and an unspecified claim against another business.

The court had previously granted Ally permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Because the complaint alleged violations of federal constitutional rights, the court treated those claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The court treated the allegation about losing his job at Chipotle as a possible claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits certain employment discrimination.

Venue Analysis

Venue means the proper geographic federal court for a case. The court explained that Title VII claims generally may be filed where the alleged employment practice occurred, where relevant employment records are kept, or where the person would have worked absent the alleged discrimination. Claims under § 1983 or state law generally may be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority.

Ally identified events involving Harrisburg Area Community College, Temple University, Shippensburg, the Newport Police Barracks, Cumberland County, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The court determined that the relevant events occurred in Dauphin, Cumberland, Franklin, Perry, and Philadelphia Counties, all in Pennsylvania. Ally alleged no facts showing that the events occurred in the Southern District of New York, that a defendant resided there for purposes of the claims, or that the alleged employment practice occurred there.

The court concluded that venue was improper in the Southern District of New York. It determined that claims arising in Dauphin, Cumberland, Franklin, and Perry Counties could be heard in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. It noted that claims arising in Philadelphia County might instead belong in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, although the Middle District of Pennsylvania could also consider whether it was a proper venue for those claims.

Disposition

The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which permits transfer when venue is improper. The Clerk was directed to transfer the action, no summons was to issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the case in that court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.