Lurch v. Exodus Transitional Services
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-05463
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lurch v. Exodus Transitional Services, Judge Swain transferred Lurch’s action to the Eastern District of New York because the events occurred in Queens.
Robert Derek Lurch, Jr.’s claims against Exodus Transitional Services, its unidentified employees, and unidentified police officers were transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The receiving court must decide whether he may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Lurch v. Exodus Transitional Services, Robert Derek Lurch, Jr., who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued Exodus Transitional Services, unidentified employees, and unidentified police officers. He alleged that he was evicted from Exodus’s Long Island City housing after an incident involving a case worker.
The court found that the events underlying the claims occurred in Queens County, which is in the Eastern District of New York. It also said that relevant witnesses and documents would likely be there, while the defendants’ residences were not provided.
Judge Swain ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York and closed the case in the Southern District of New York. The court did not issue a summons, left any decision about proceeding without paying fees to the receiving court, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Lurch v. Exodus Transitional Services · No. 1:22-cv-05463
- Laura Swain
- June 29, 2022
Background
Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. brought the action without a lawyer while incarcerated at the Atlantic County Justice Facility in New Jersey. He sued Exodus Transitional Services, unidentified Exodus employees at its Long Island City location, and unidentified police officers who responded there in May 2021.
Lurch alleged that Exodus provides a program involving housing for formerly incarcerated people and gave him housing at 29-27 40th Road in Queens County. He alleged that police were called to that location to evict him after he called a case worker an expletive. He maintained that he had not violated the terms or conditions of his agreement with Exodus and should not have been evicted.
Venue and Transfer
The court considered the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. It explained that venue may be proper 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. Lurch did not provide facts about the defendants’ residences, so the court said it was unclear whether venue was proper in the Southern District of New York based on residence.
The court found that the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Queens County, which is in the Eastern District of New York. It therefore concluded that venue under the provision covering the location of the events was not proper in the Southern District of New York and was proper in the Eastern District of New York.
The court also applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It determined that transfer was appropriate because Lurch was incarcerated in New Jersey, all underlying events occurred in Queens County, and relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be in that district.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It closed the case in the Southern District of New York and stated that the receiving court would decide whether Lurch could continue without prepaying filing fees. The court also ordered that no summons issue from the Southern District of New York.
The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Lurch permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The order transferred the case based on venue and convenience; it did not decide the underlying allegations against Exodus or the police officers.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.