Saidi v. U.S. Federal Government

Background

Kasim M. Saidi filed this action without a lawyer, invoking federal-question jurisdiction. His amended complaint named Howard Stern and the United States Government as defendants. The court understood the claims against the United States Government as claims against the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a federal law allowing certain lawsuits against the United States for torts.

Saidi alleged that events beginning in 1991 caused invasion of privacy, harassment, mental anguish, humiliation, and other harm. He sought one billion dollars in damages and asked that the alleged situation stop. The opinion reports that he identified Brooklyn, where he resides, as the only specific location where the events appeared to have occurred and to be continuing.

Venue analysis

For claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the court explained that federal law permits a case to proceed only in the district where the plaintiff resides or where the alleged act or omission occurred. Brooklyn is in the Eastern District of New York. The court stated that the Southern District might also be a proper venue for some claims, but that the Eastern District was clearly a proper venue.

For the remaining claims, the court applied the general federal venue statute. It found it unclear whether the Southern District was proper because Saidi did not specify where Stern resides and because it was unclear whether a substantial part of the events occurred there. The court again concluded that the Eastern District was a proper venue because of the alleged events in Brooklyn.

The court also considered the federal transfer statute, which allows transfer to another federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It reasoned that Saidi resides in Brooklyn, a significant portion of the alleged events occurred there, and relevant documents and witnesses could be located there. The Eastern District therefore appeared to be the more convenient forum.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order closed the action in the Southern District of New York, and summonses were not to issue from that court. The opinion did not decide the underlying validity of Saidi’s claims. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether Saidi could proceed without prepaying fees. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.