Pellegrino v. Buffalo Police Department
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-08170
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Pellegrino v. Buffalo Police Department, Judge Woods treated the filing as a civil-rights case and transferred it to the Western District of New York.
Mark Pellegrino's case was reclassified as a civil-rights action and transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Western District of New York; the merits of his allegations were not decided.
What happened
Pellegrino v. Buffalo Police Department began when Mark Pellegrino, representing himself, filed a miscellaneous case claiming that the Buffalo Police Department and Erie County unlawfully seized his property in Buffalo, New York.
The court decided that the filing was a civil-rights action, not a miscellaneous matter. Because the alleged events occurred in Erie County and the defendants appeared to be located there, the court found that the Southern District of New York was not the proper venue and ordered the new civil action transferred to the Western District of New York.
Judge Gregory H. Woods directed the Clerk to open and transfer the new civil case, stop accepting filings in the miscellaneous case, and not issue a summons from the Southern District. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Pellegrino v. Buffalo Police Department · No. 1:22-cv-08170
- Gregory Woods
- Sept. 23, 2022
Background
Mark Pellegrino, appearing without a lawyer, initiated the matter as a miscellaneous case. He alleged that the Buffalo Police Department and the County of Erie deprived him of his rights by unlawfully seizing his property in Buffalo, New York. The opinion states that the submission sought redress for those allegations and was not related to any pending case or proceeding.
Classification of the Filing
The court explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognize one general form of action: a civil action. It also explained that miscellaneous case numbers are generally used for specified ancillary or administrative matters, such as foreign subpoenas, judgment registrations, protective-order proceedings, and certain other listed matters.
Because Pellegrino's submission sought relief from the defendants for alleged unlawful seizure of property and did not fit the listed category of miscellaneous matters, the court construed the filing as a civil-rights action. It directed the Clerk of Court to open a new civil case and place the new matter on Judge Woods's docket.
Venue and Transfer
Venue is the legally proper federal district for a case. The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and stated that a civil action may generally be brought where defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction.
The court stated that the alleged events occurred in Erie County, New York, and that all defendants appeared to be located there. It therefore concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case filed in the wrong venue when transfer is in the interest of justice. The court found that venue lay in the Western District of New York and transferred the new civil action there.
Disposition
The court construed the miscellaneous matter as a civil-rights action and directed the Clerk to open a new civil case, file copies of the plaintiff's submissions and the order in that case, assign the new matter to Judge Woods's docket, and transfer it to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The Clerk was directed not to accept further filings in the miscellaneous matter. The opinion states that the transferee court would decide whether Pellegrino could proceed without prepaying fees, and that no summons would issue from the Southern District of New York.
The order states that it closes both the miscellaneous case and the new civil action in the Southern District. It also certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denies permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion does not decide the merits of Pellegrino's property-seizure allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.