Zapata v. Stefanski
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-03154
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Zapata v. Stefanski, Judge Swain transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York because Staten Island was the more convenient venue.
Luis F. Zapata and the defendants named in the action are affected by the transfer from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The receiving court will decide whether Zapata may proceed without prepaying fees and whether the filing-access restriction continues.
What happened
In Zapata v. Stefanski, Luis F. Zapata filed a constitutional-rights damages action while held on Rikers Island. He sued seven defendants and alleged that the events underlying his claims occurred on Staten Island.
The Southern District of New York found that the Eastern District of New York was a proper venue because Staten Island is in that district. The court also determined that transfer was appropriate because the defendants, documents, and witnesses were expected to be there.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the Eastern District of New York under the federal transfer law. The order closed the action in the Southern District, left future fee and filing-access decisions to the receiving court, and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Zapata v. Stefanski · No. 1:24-cv-03154
- Laura Swain
- May 10, 2024
Background
Luis F. Zapata filed this case without a lawyer and sought damages for alleged violations of his federal constitutional rights. He sued Jeffrey Stefanski, Christophe Bannon, Simone Michael, Pomblack David, Lee Maldonado, Police Sergeant Camnata, and Vitaliano Edgar Michael, Esq. Zapata alleged that six of the defendants were New York City Police Department officers assigned to the 120th Precinct on Staten Island, and that Michael’s work address was on Staten Island. He alleged that the events supporting his claims occurred on Staten Island.
Venue and Transfer
The court explained that federal law permits a case to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. Zapata did not allege where the defendants resided, so the court could not determine whether venue was proper in the Southern District under the residence provision. But because the alleged events occurred on Staten Island, the Eastern District of New York was a proper venue.
The court applied the federal transfer statute, which allows transfer to another federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It concluded that transfer was appropriate because the alleged events occurred on Staten Island, Zapata alleged that all defendants were located there, and relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be there.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order states that the action was closed in the Southern District of New York; it did not decide the underlying constitutional claims. The transferee court was left to decide whether Zapata could proceed without paying filing fees and whether the restriction on public electronic access to his fee application should continue. Summonses were not to issue from the Southern District. Judge Laura Taylor Swain 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.