Deonarine v. United States Postal Service
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-11116
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Deonarine v. United States Postal Service, Judge Swain transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York for convenience.
Daniel K. Deonarine’s case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The transfer did not resolve the merits of his claims; the transferee court was left to address his request for pro bono counsel.
What happened
In Deonarine v. United States Postal Service, Daniel K. Deonarine, representing himself, appears to challenge discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act based on his former work for the Postal Service.
The court found that both Deonarine and the alleged events were in Queens County, in the Eastern District of New York. It therefore decided that the Eastern District would be a more convenient place for the case, including because relevant documents and witnesses were likely to be there.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York under the federal venue-transfer law. The Southern District court closed the action there, left Deonarine’s request for pro bono counsel to the transferee court, and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Deonarine v. United States Postal Service · No. 1:23-cv-11116
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 26, 2024
Background
Daniel K. Deonarine brought this action without a lawyer. The opinion says he apparently asserts discrimination and retaliation claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, arising from his former employment with the United States Postal Service at a facility in Queens County. The filing docketed as his complaint was actually a non-final administrative decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concerning his administrative complaint.
The court had granted Deonarine permission to proceed without paying filing fees. He also sought an order requesting pro bono counsel. The court limited electronic access to that application because it revealed the name of at least one minor child.
Venue analysis
The court explained that claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act arising from federal employment may be brought in a district where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, when real property is not involved, where the plaintiff resides. The court stated that the Southern District of New York was a proper venue because the Postal Service resides there for purposes of this action.
The court also found that the Eastern District of New York was a proper venue. Deonarine resides in Queens County, and the alleged events appear to have occurred at his workplace in Queens County. The court further reasoned that relevant documents and witnesses would likely be located in that district. Although venue was proper in the Southern District, the court applied the federal transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer to another proper federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
Ruling
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It closed the action in the Southern District of New York and deferred Deonarine’s application for a request for pro bono counsel to the Eastern District court. The order did not decide whether Deonarine’s discrimination or retaliation claims were legally or factually valid. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.