Gu v. John Doe

Background

De Min Gu filed this action without a lawyer in the Southern District of New York, invoking federal-question jurisdiction. She named four defendants: “John Doe” (Neal), another “John Doe,” a third “John Doe,” and plainclothes police of the 62nd Precinct Police of New York City. The opinion states that Gu alleged three individual defendants resided in Brooklyn and did not specify where the fourth individual defendant resided. Gu alleged that the events underlying her claims occurred in New York City, primarily in Brooklyn.

Venue analysis

Federal venue rules generally allow a civil action to proceed in a district where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in certain circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that Gu had not shown that the Southern District was a proper venue based on where the defendants resided. It did conclude, however, that the allegations showed that a substantial part of the events occurred in Brooklyn.

Brooklyn is in Kings County, which the court stated is within the Eastern District of New York. Under the federal venue statute, the Eastern District was therefore a proper venue for the action.

Ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case is filed in the wrong venue, a court may dismiss it or, in the interest of justice, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. 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 did not decide the underlying claims.

The Southern District closed the action there, and summonses were not to issue from that court. The transferee court was to decide whether Gu could proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.