Borgella v. Leo
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-03500
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Borgella v. Leo, Judge Liman transferred Borgella’s civil-rights case to the Eastern District of New York because the underlying events occurred in Kings County.
The order affects Roberto Borgella, Judge Donald Leo, and Lawrence George Mottola by moving Borgella’s civil-rights action from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. It did not decide the merits of Borgella’s allegations.
What happened
In Borgella v. Leo, Roberto Borgella, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center and represented himself, sued Judge Donald Leo and attorney Lawrence George Mottola under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that they violated his rights during his criminal proceedings in Kings County, New York.
The court explained that the case could be heard in the Eastern District of New York because the events occurred there. The defendants worked there, and relevant documents and witnesses were reasonably expected to be there. Because Borgella was incarcerated, the court found that neither district would be more inconvenient for him.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York under the federal convenience-and-justice transfer statute. The clerk was directed to transfer the case, no summons was to issue from the Southern District, and the Southern District case was closed. The court also denied fee-free appeal status because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Borgella v. Leo · No. 1:23-cv-03500
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 28, 2023
Background
Roberto Borgella, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Judge Donald Leo of the Kings County Supreme Court, Criminal Term, and Lawrence George Mottola, an attorney representing Borgella in his criminal proceedings, violated his rights during those proceedings. Borgella provided Kings County work addresses for both defendants and paid the filing fees for the action.
Venue analysis
The court explained that federal law permits a civil action to be brought in a district where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. Borgella did not state where the defendants resided, so the court could not determine whether venue was proper under the residence provision.
The court concluded that venue was proper in the Eastern District of New York under the provision covering where the events occurred because the alleged events took place in Kings County. Kings County is within that district. The court also noted that, even assuming venue was proper in the Southern District of New York, the case could be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
Transfer ruling
The court found that transfer was appropriate. The underlying events occurred in Kings County, Borgella’s criminal proceedings were ongoing there, and the defendants were employed there. The court reasonably expected relevant documents and witnesses to be located in Kings County. Because Borgella was incarcerated, the court found that neither forum would be more inconvenient for him.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the action transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The clerk was directed to transfer the action, a summons was not to issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the case in that court. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Borgella fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.