Wise v. The City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-05953
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Wise v. The City of New York, Judge Swain transferred Wise’s case to the Eastern District of New York because Brooklyn was the more convenient venue.
Terrence Wise and the defendants—New York City, the 75th Precinct, and the three unnamed police officers—are affected by the transfer from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The receiving court will address any further proceedings and Wise’s request to proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Wise v. The City of New York, Terrence Wise filed a lawsuit without a lawyer seeking damages from New York City, the 75th Precinct, and three unnamed police officers. He alleged that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights and state law.
The court noted that the events allegedly occurred in Brooklyn, which is in the Eastern District of New York. Although the Southern District might also have been a proper venue, the court found that the Eastern District appeared more convenient because the events, defendants, documents, and witnesses were likely connected to Kings County.
Judge Swain transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York under the federal venue-transfer statute. The order closed the case in the Southern District, left any decision about proceeding without prepaying fees to the receiving court, and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Wise v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-05953
- Laura Swain
- July 25, 2023
Background
Terrence Wise, who was incarcerated at the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, filed this action without a lawyer. He sought damages and alleged that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. The defendants were New York City; the New York City Police Department’s 75th Precinct; “John Doe Police Officer” with Badge No. 966435; “John Doe Partner Police Officer”; and “John Doe (Victor) Police Officer” with Badge No. 961043.
The court understood the complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain constitutional-rights claims against state or local actors, as well as claims under state law.
Venue and Transfer
The court explained that federal law permits a civil action to proceed in certain districts, including a district where a substantial part of the events occurred. Wise alleged that the events underlying his claims occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County. Kings County is within the Eastern District of New York.
The court said it was unclear whether the Southern District of New York was a proper venue based on where all defendants resided because Wise did not specify their residences. Even assuming that venue was proper in the Southern District, the court determined that the Eastern District was also a proper venue because the alleged events occurred there.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal court may transfer a case to another federal district where it could have been brought when the transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The court found transfer appropriate because the alleged events occurred in Kings County, the defendants appeared to be located there, and relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be there.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It stated that the receiving court would decide whether Wise could proceed without prepaying fees. Summonses were not to issue from the Southern District, and the order closed the action in that court. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The court did not decide the merits of Wise’s constitutional or state-law claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.