Rivera v. United States U.S. Government The United States U.S.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-01448
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Rivera v. United States, Judge Caproni transferred Rivera’s claims to the Eastern District of New York for venue and convenience reasons.
Jacinto Rivera’s claims were transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York; the defendants remain the parties named in the action.
What happened
In Jacinto Rivera v. United States of America, et al., Jacinto Rivera, representing himself, sued federal and New York governmental defendants for damages and Social Security-related relief under several federal statutes. The court understood his claims as involving the Federal Tort Claims Act, a constitutional damages claim, a civil-rights statute, and Social Security judicial-review provisions.
The court concluded that the Eastern District of New York was the proper venue for Rivera’s Federal Tort Claims Act and Social Security claims because Rivera resides in Brooklyn. It also found that the Eastern District was a proper or more convenient venue for his other claims because the defendants or alleged events connected those claims to New York. The court therefore transferred the action to that district and directed the Clerk to close this case.
Judge Valerie Caproni transferred the Federal Tort Claims Act, Social Security, and constitutional damages claims under the statute governing an incorrectly chosen venue, and transferred the civil-rights claims under the statute allowing transfer for convenience. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. United States U.S. Government The United States U.S. · No. 1:23-cv-01448
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 7, 2023
Background
Jacinto Rivera, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action seeking damages and other relief against the United States and other federal entities, President Joseph R. Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, the City of New York, and the State of New York. The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the constitutional damages remedy recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Social Security judicial-review provisions in 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3).
Venue analysis
For the FTCA claims, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b), which generally permits a tort action against the United States only where the plaintiff resides or where the relevant act or omission occurred. The court stated that Rivera resides in Brooklyn, which is in the Eastern District of New York, and inferred from the complaint that the relevant events occurred there. It therefore concluded that the Eastern District was the proper venue for the FTCA claims.
For the claims the court construed as Bivens claims against the President and Vice President, the court explained that the complaint identified Washington, D.C., as their place of residence, making the District of Columbia a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). The court also concluded that the Eastern District of New York was a proper venue for those claims. For the § 1983 claims against New York State and New York City, the court determined that the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York were proper venues, and that the Eastern District was also proper because the court understood the alleged events to have occurred in Brooklyn.
For the Social Security claims, the court applied 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), as incorporated for the relevant claims by § 1383(c)(3). Those claims had to be brought in the district where Rivera resides or has his principal place of business, or otherwise in the District of Columbia. Because Rivera resides in Brooklyn and did not allege that he had his principal place of business in the Southern District, the court concluded that the Eastern District was the only proper venue for those claims.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer an action filed in the wrong venue when transfer serves the interests of justice. The court transferred Rivera’s FTCA, Social Security, and Bivens claims to the Eastern District of New York under that provision. The court separately applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer for convenience and in the interest of justice even when venue is proper. After considering the relevant factors, including Rivera’s residence and the apparent location of the events, documents, and witnesses, the court transferred the § 1983 claims to the Eastern District under § 1404(a).
The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and to close the case. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Rivera’s ability to proceed without paying the appeal filing fees. The order addressed venue and transfer; it did not decide the underlying merits of Rivera’s claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.