Reeves v. The City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-02018
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Reeves v. City of New York, Judge Swain transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York because Brooklyn was the proper and more convenient forum.
Michael Reeves, the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and the defendants identified in the complaint as Detective John Doe 1, Detective John Doe 2, Detective John Doe 3, Detective Jane Doe 1 aka Detective Davilla, and Detective Jane Doe 2.
What happened
In Reeves v. The City of New York, Michael Reeves, representing himself, sued the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and several detectives under federal civil-rights and state laws. He alleged that his arrest, property seizure, detention, injuries, and criminal prosecution occurred in Brooklyn.
The court concluded that Brooklyn is in the Eastern District of New York and that Reeves did not identify substantial events occurring in the Southern District of New York. The court also found the Eastern District more convenient because the events, individual defendants’ assigned precinct, documents, and witnesses were expected to be there.
Judge Swain transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York. The order closed the action in the Southern District, stated that summonses would not issue there, and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Reeves v. The City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-02018
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 22, 2024
Background
Michael Reeves filed this action without a lawyer, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. He sued the City of New York; the New York City Police Department; three defendants identified as “Detective John Doe”; and two defendants identified as “Detective Jane Doe,” including one also identified as Detective Davilla. Reeves alleged that his arrest, seizure of personal property, post-arrest detention, physical injuries, and what appeared to be his criminal prosecution occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York.
Venue and transfer
The court considered the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). It stated that the City of New York and the New York City Police Department reside in both the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. Because Reeves did not allege where the other defendants reside, the court found it unclear whether venue was proper in the Southern District under the rule concerning defendants’ residence.
The court nevertheless concluded that the Eastern District was a proper venue because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Brooklyn, which is within that district. Reeves did not allege facts suggesting that a substantial portion of the events occurred in the Southern District.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal court may transfer a case to another federal district where it could have been brought when the transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The court found transfer appropriate because the underlying events allegedly occurred in Brooklyn, the individual defendants were alleged to be assigned to an NYPD precinct there, and relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be located there.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order stated that the action was closed in the Southern District of New York and that summonses would not issue from that court. The transferee court was left to decide whether Reeves could proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The court did not decide the merits of Reeves’s claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.