Percival v. Zimmerman
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-01303
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Percival v. Zimmerman: Magistrate Judge Wang transferred the case to Pennsylvania because venue was improper in New York.
Judy Christian Percival, whose case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; the transferee court will decide whether she may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Percival v. Zimmerman, the court considered whether the case should remain in the Southern District of New York or be transferred to Pennsylvania.
The court treated Judy Christian Percival’s filing as agreeing that the case should be transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It therefore found that venue was proper there, not in New York.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang ordered the Clerk to transfer the action, left any decision about proceeding without prepaying fees to the Pennsylvania court, directed that no summons issue from the New York court, and closed the case. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Percival v. Zimmerman · No. 1:23-cv-01303
- Analisa Torres
- May 11, 2023
Background
On May 5, 2023, the court directed Plaintiff Judy Christian Percival to explain why the case should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court construed her response, filed as ECF 11, as agreement that the case should be transferred.
Ruling
The court concluded that venue—the proper federal district for the case—was in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rather than the Southern District of New York. It directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to that district.
The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Plaintiff could proceed without prepaying fees. It also directed that a summons not issue from the Southern District of New York and stated that the order closed the case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.