Keita v. Chase Bank

Background

Mohammed Keita, proceeding without a lawyer, filed the action for himself and his minor son. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. Keita alleged that he received a $30,000 auto-insurance settlement check, brought it to the Chase branch at 200 New Dorp Lane on Staten Island, New York, and that the defendants lost the check. He sought the return of the lost funds and funds allegedly debited from his account, including overdraft payments for checks that were returned.

The court explained that a person proceeding without a lawyer generally may represent only himself, not another person. Because Keita alleged no facts suggesting that he was an attorney, the court concluded that he could not assert claims on behalf of his son.

Venue

The court applied the federal venue statute, which generally permits a civil action in a district where a substantial part of the events occurred. It concluded that the alleged events occurred in Staten Island, which is in Richmond County and the Eastern District of New York. Nothing in the complaint suggested that the Southern District of New York was a proper venue.

When a case is filed in the wrong federal district, the court may dismiss it or, if the interests of justice favor doing so, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. The court declined to transfer this action because Keita had filed multiple other actions in the Southern District of New York that the court determined were improperly venued, and he had previously been warned that further improper filings could lead to a filing restriction.

Order to Show Cause

The court ordered Keita to show cause—meaning to explain—why he should not be barred from filing future actions in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining permission, when filing without paying fees. He had 30 days from the order to submit a declaration stating good cause why the restriction should not be imposed. The court stated that if he did not submit the declaration, or if it did not provide good cause, the restriction would be entered. The court had not yet imposed that restriction in this order.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for improper venue. The court also directed Keita to respond to the order to show cause and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so it denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.