Buckner v. The City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-06645
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Buckner v. City of New York, Judge Swain transferred the case to federal court in Pennsylvania as a more convenient venue.
Shatasia Buckner and the named defendants were affected by the transfer: the case moved from the Southern District of New York to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where further procedural decisions will be made.
What happened
In Buckner v. The City of New York, Shatasia Buckner, representing herself, sued the City of New York, Lisa J. Friederwitzer, Russell Luke-King, and Chanel Buckner. She sought damages and court orders over alleged events involving the children’s move from New York to Pennsylvania and a Pennsylvania custody proceeding.
The Southern District of New York concluded that the case could also be heard in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The court said many underlying events allegedly occurred there, Chanel Buckner and the children appeared to be there, and relevant witnesses and documents might also be there.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania under the federal venue-transfer law. The New York court closed the action there, said summonses would not issue from that court, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees; it did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Buckner v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-06645
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 30, 2023
Background
Shatasia Buckner filed this lawsuit without a lawyer, seeking injunctive relief—court-ordered action—and damages. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction. The defendants were the City of New York; Lisa J. Friederwitzer, identified as a New York Family Court judge in Kings County; Russell Luke-King, whom Buckner apparently alleged was the father of her children; and Chanel Buckner, whom Buckner apparently alleged was her mother.
Buckner’s claims arose from her allegations that Luke-King, assisted by Chanel Buckner, abducted Buckner’s and Luke-King’s children from New York to Pennsylvania. Buckner alleged that Chanel Buckner then sought custody of the children in a Pennsylvania state court in Luzerne County. The opinion noted that it was unclear whether Buckner also alleged that the Pennsylvania court awarded Chanel Buckner custody.
Venue Analysis
Federal law generally permits a civil case to be filed in a district where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. The court concluded that the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue under the residence provision because Luke-King was alleged to reside in New Jersey and Chanel Buckner was alleged to reside in Pennsylvania, meaning that all defendants did not reside in New York. The opinion did not state where Judge Friederwitzer resides.
The court said the Southern District of New York might nevertheless be a proper venue because some alleged events may have occurred there. It also concluded that the Middle District of Pennsylvania was a proper venue because Luke-King allegedly transported the children there and Chanel Buckner allegedly sought custody there, in Luzerne County.
Transfer Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal court may transfer a case to another federal district where it could have been filed when the transfer would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses and would serve the interests of justice. The court found that transfer to the Middle District of Pennsylvania appeared appropriate. It relied on the allegation that many underlying events occurred there, that Chanel Buckner and the children appeared to be located there, and that relevant documents and witnesses could also be located there.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The order closed the action in the Southern District of New York. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether Buckner could proceed without prepaying filing fees, and it directed that summonses not issue from the Southern District of New York.
The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees for that appeal. The order addressed venue and convenience; it did not decide the merits of Buckner’s underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.