Azcona v. State of NJ
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-00568
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Azcona v. State of NJ, Judge Swain transferred the case to New Jersey because venue was proper there, not New York.
Daniel Azcona’s case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey; the transfer concerned the case’s location and did not resolve the claims against the defendants.
What happened
In Azcona v. State of NJ, Daniel Azcona, representing himself, sued New Jersey and federal defendants over claims the court said were difficult to understand because the complaint was nearly illegible.
The court found that most defendants were connected to New Jersey, that many of the alleged events appeared to have occurred there, and that it was unclear whether any substantial events occurred in New York. It therefore decided that the case should be heard in the District of New Jersey.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the District of New Jersey and closed the case in the Southern District of New York. The court did not decide whether Azcona’s claims were legally valid, and it denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Azcona v. State of NJ · No. 1:24-cv-00568
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 26, 2024
Background
Daniel Azcona filed a self-represented action against the State of New Jersey, the New Brunswick Police Department, unidentified New Jersey Department of Corrections staff, the United States Marshals Service, the Camden County Drug Court, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The opinion says the complaint was nearly illegible, making it difficult to determine the nature of the claims or what had happened. The complaint mentioned paperwork involving the Camden County Drug Court, a fugitive warrant, identity theft, former New Jersey Governor Phillip Murphy, fear of harm, and the New York City subway.
Azcona did not provide a current address of record. The court noted that his last known address was in New Jersey. The opinion also refers to earlier related proceedings, including one that had been transferred to the District of New Jersey.
Venue Analysis
Federal law generally permits a civil action to proceed in a district where all defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. The court concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York under the first option because not all defendants were residents of New York.
The court also said it was unclear whether a substantial part of the events occurred in New York. Although Azcona referred to the New York City subway, the complaint did not clearly show that he was asserting a claim based on events there.
By contrast, the court found that venue under the events-based provision appeared proper in the District of New Jersey. A substantial part of the claims appeared to have arisen there, most defendants were located there, and Azcona’s last known address was there. The court cited the federal transfer statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 and 1406, and determined that transfer was in the interest of justice.
Ruling
The Clerk was directed to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Southern District of New York case was closed, and a summons was not to issue from that court. The transferee court was left to decide whether Azcona could proceed without prepaying filing fees; the opinion states that he had not filed an application to do so or paid the filing fees.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order transferred the case based on venue and did not decide the merits of Azcona’s underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.