Chavez v. Doe
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-05030
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Chavez v. Doe, Chief Judge Swain transferred Juan Chavez’s action from New York to California because the alleged events and likely evidence were there.
Juan Chavez and the defendants named in the action—Doe, Marian Brown, Bobby Lumpkin, and the Los Angeles Municipal Court—were affected by the transfer of the case from the Southern District of New York to the Central District of California.
What happened
Juan Chavez, representing himself, sued the Los Angeles Municipal Court, Marian Brown, Bobby Lumpkin, and an unidentified Doe defendant. His unclear allegations concerned events in the Los Angeles area, including access to personal items and an indigent kit while he was incarcerated there.
The court said it was unclear whether New York was a proper location for the case because Chavez did not identify where the defendants lived or allege events in New York. It concluded that California was more convenient because the events, documents, and witnesses appeared to be in Los Angeles.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. The New York case was closed, no summons would issue there, and Chavez was denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Chavez v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-05030
- Laura Swain
- June 22, 2023
Background
Juan Chavez filed the action without a lawyer against the Los Angeles Municipal Court, Marian Brown, Bobby Lumpkin, and an unidentified Doe defendant. The opinion says the complaint was unclear but appeared to concern events in Los Angeles, California. Chavez referred to the Los Angeles Police Department allegedly taking his spectacles and attached materials concerning an indigent kit and an alleged delay of more than 100 days at Twin Towers Correctional Facility.
Venue and Transfer Analysis
The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil case to be filed 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. Chavez did not allege where any defendant lived or identify events occurring in the Southern District of New York. The court therefore said it was unclear whether venue—the proper federal district for the case—was available in New York.
The court also considered transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits a case to be moved to another district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It found transfer appropriate because the underlying events occurred in Los Angeles County, Chavez was incarcerated there, at least one defendant could be found there, and documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be there. The court gave less weight to Chavez’s choice of New York because he did not appear to reside there and the operative events did not occur there.
Disposition
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether Chavez could continue without paying filing fees. The Southern District of New York would not issue a summons, and the order closed the case in that district. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Judge
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued and signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.