Miller v. Kortright
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-02002
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Miller v. Kortright, Judge Swain transferred James Miller’s civil-rights action to the Northern District of New York because that district was more convenient.
James Miller’s case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of New York. The transferee court will decide whether he may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
Miller v. Kortright is a civil-rights case brought by James Miller, who is incarcerated and represented himself. He sued three employees allegedly assigned to the Eastern Correctional Facility, where the events underlying his claims occurred.
The court concluded that the Northern District of New York was a proper and more convenient venue because the events occurred there and relevant witnesses and documents were likely located there. It therefore transferred the action to that district.
Judge Swain directed the Clerk to transfer the action and said that the Northern District would decide whether Miller could proceed without prepaying fees. The Southern District closed the action, did not issue summonses, and denied fee-free status for any appeal because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Miller v. Kortright · No. 1:24-cv-02002
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 22, 2024
Background
James Miller filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. The opinion states that Miller is incarcerated at Adirondack Correctional Facility. He sued L. Kortright, L. Lilly, and L. JERGJI, identified in the caption as defendants. The opinion says that the claims arise from events at Eastern Correctional Facility and describes the defendants as allegedly assigned there.
Venue and Transfer
The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil action to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if neither applies, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. Miller did not allege where the defendants lived, so the court could not determine whether venue was proper in the Southern District of New York on that basis. But the events allegedly occurred at Eastern Correctional Facility in Napanoch, Ulster County, which is in the Northern District of New York. The court therefore found that the Northern District was a proper venue.
The court also applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a federal court to transfer a case to another proper federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It concluded that transfer was appropriate because the underlying events occurred at Eastern Correctional Facility, the defendants were allegedly assigned there, and relevant documents and witnesses would likely be located there. The court determined that the Northern District of New York appeared to be the more convenient forum.
Disposition
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. It directed the Clerk of Court to carry out the transfer, stated that the transferee court would decide whether Miller could proceed without prepaying fees, and ordered that summonses would not issue from the Southern District. The order closed the action in the Southern District. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.