Ahmed v. Police Officers of 103 Precinct
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-00554
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ahmed v. Police Officers of 103 Precinct, Judge Ramos transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York because related litigation was filed there first.
Bushka Ahmed and the defendants are affected by the transfer of this action from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The case is closed in the Southern District, and no summons will issue there.
What happened
In Ahmed v. Police Officers of 103 Precinct, Bushka Ahmed, representing herself, sued police officers, an Administration of Children’s Services commissioner, and a child-protection specialist over the removal of her minor child from her custody. She had also filed a substantially similar case in the Eastern District of New York.
The court found that transfer was appropriate because the events occurred in Queens County, where relevant documents and witnesses were expected to be located. The Eastern District was also the favored forum because Ahmed’s similar case was filed there first, and the events did not occur in the Southern District.
Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the Eastern District of New York, directed that no summons issue from the Southern District, and directed the Clerk to close the case. The court also denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Ahmed v. Police Officers of 103 Precinct · No. 1:23-cv-00554
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 30, 2023
Background
Bushka Ahmed brought this action without a lawyer, seeking the return of her minor child. According to the complaint materials, the child had been taken into the custody of the New York City Administration of Children’s Services after a neglect petition was filed in Queens County Family Court. Ahmed sued the police officers who allegedly removed the child, Administration of Children’s Services Commissioner Jess Dannhauser, and Child Protective Specialist Andrea Aguirre.
Ahmed filed this action in the Southern District of New York and paid the filing fee. Before filing it, she had filed a substantially similar complaint against Dannhauser and Aguirre in the Eastern District of New York and also paid that case’s filing fee.
Transfer analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a federal court to transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court stated that district courts have broad discretion in making that determination and may transfer a case on their own initiative.
The court determined that transfer was appropriate because the underlying events occurred in Queens County, where Ahmed resided with her son, and where the relevant documents and witnesses were reasonably expected to be located. The court also relied on the earlier-filed, substantially similar case in the Eastern District of New York. Under the first-filed rule, when two federal courts have cases involving the same parties and issues, the first-filed case’s court is generally favored. The court further stated that Ahmed’s choice of the Southern District received less deference because she did not reside in a county within that district and the operative events did not occur there.
Ruling and disposition
Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order also states that a summons shall not issue from the Southern District and directs the Clerk to close the case there. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.