Challenger v. Administration of Children Services

Background

Chaim A. Challenger filed this self-represented action invoking federal-question jurisdiction and seeking damages. He asserted claims described as ineffective counsel, excessive bail, denial of adequate medical attention, gender discrimination, race discrimination, and religious discrimination. The court understood the complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.

The named defendants were the New York City Administration for Children’s Services; the New York City Department of Homeless Services; the New York City Police Department; the Office of the District Attorney of Kings County; the New York Supreme Court, Kings County, Criminal Part; the New York Supreme Court, Kings County; Little Flower Foster Care Agency; the New York State Unified Court System; and the Legal Aid Society of Brooklyn.

Venue and Transfer Analysis

The court explained that venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because all defendants appeared to reside in New York State and because a substantial part of the events allegedly occurred in Brooklyn, which is in the Eastern District of New York. The opinion also notes that Challenger alleged that some events occurred in New Jersey, but the court did not consider New Jersey further because he did not allege that any defendant was located there.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case to another federal district where it could have been brought when doing so serves the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The court concluded that transfer was appropriate because the vast majority of the events allegedly occurred in Kings County, all defendants appeared to be located there, and relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be there.

Disposition

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 court stated that the action was closed in the Southern District of New York, that summonses would not issue from that court, and that the receiving court would decide whether Challenger 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. The order did not decide the merits of Challenger’s asserted claims.