Gelish v. Retro Predecessors USA Government and present USA President Joseph…
Gelish v. Retro Predecessors USA Government and present USA President Joseph Biden
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-10969
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gelish v. City of New York, Judge Swain transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York and denied appeal-related in forma pauperis status.
Steven W. Gelish, who sought to transfer the action and proceed without paying fees for an appeal; the defendants, whose defenses to any amended complaint were preserved; and the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, because the case was transferred and future filings were directed to the Eastern District.
What happened
In Steven W. Gelish v. City of New York, the court had previously dismissed the action for failing to state a claim and for seeking money from defendants protected from lawsuits. The court allowed Gelish to amend claims against the City of New York and Commissioner Ashwin Vasan, but said claims against Martha Adams Sullivan and Dr. Myra Recon-Bucevic appeared to belong in the Eastern District of New York.
Gelish asked to transfer the entire action so he could file one amended complaint covering all of the defendants instead of pursuing separate cases in separate courts. The court agreed and ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York. The transfer did not prevent the defendants from asserting defenses to any amended complaint filed there.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted the transfer request, closed the case in the Southern District of New York, and directed that future filings be made in the Eastern District after the Eastern District assigns a docket number. She also ruled that Gelish could not proceed without paying fees for an appeal because any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Gelish v. Retro Predecessors USA Government and present USA President Joseph… · No. 1:23-cv-10969
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 1, 2024
Background
Steven W. Gelish filed the action against federal, state, municipal, and private defendants. He was representing himself and had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. On February 29, 2024, the court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii) for failure to state a claim for relief and because Gelish sought money from defendants who were immune from suit.
The court allowed Gelish to file an amended complaint against the City of New York and New York City Department of Health Commissioner Ashwin Vasan. It did not allow amendment of his claims against Martha Adams Sullivan, identified as the Executive Director of Creedmoor Psychiatric Center, and Dr. Myra Recon-Bucevic, identified as a treating physician at Queens Village Jamaica Wellness and Recovery Center. The court stated that the Southern District of New York did not appear to be the proper venue for those claims and that the Eastern District of New York appeared to be the proper venue.
Transfer request
On March 27, 2024, Gelish moved to transfer the action to the Eastern District of New York. He asked to avoid splitting his claims between the City and Commissioner Vasan, on one hand, and Sullivan and Recon-Bucevic, on the other. He sought to file one comprehensive amended complaint addressing all of the defendants because he said the claims were related.
Ruling
The court granted Gelish’s request to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action and waived the usual seven-business-day delay under Local Civil Rule 83.1. The decision was without prejudice to defenses the defendants might assert in response to any amended pleading filed in the Eastern District.
The court stated that the case was closed in the Southern District of New York and that future documents should be filed in the Eastern District after that court assigns a docket number. Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.