1:21-cv-00012
E.D.N.YDec 23, 2020Background
- Pro se plaintiff Aasir Azzarmi (Inglewood, CA) sued EDNY Judge Ann Marie Donnelly, Deputy U.S. Marshals “Bo” Johnson and Melissa Salcedo, and Does 1–10, asserting FTCA, § 1983, Bivens, RFRA, and state-law claims.
- Claims arise from Donnelly’s rulings in EDNY (including an order barring Azzarmi from the EDNY courthouse) and Marshals’ actions/communications about that ban and an investigation that allegedly found no threat.
- Azzarmi resides in the Central District of California; defendants and the operative events are alleged to be in the Eastern District of New York and in Manhattan (Southern District of New York).
- Court analyzed venue statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (civil venue generally) and 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b) (FTCA venue).
- Although venue could be proper in SDNY and EDNY for many claims (and CDCA/EDNY for FTCA), the district court evaluated transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- Exercising its discretion, the court sua sponte transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, finding the locus of operative facts, witnesses, and documents weighed in favor of transfer; IFP determination reserved to transferee; no summons issued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue for § 1983 / Bivens / RFRA / state claims under § 1391(b) | Venue is proper in this district (SDNY) because some events occurred here and plaintiff filed here | No meaningful opposing venue argument in the record | SDNY and EDNY are proper venues; EDNY is especially appropriate given defendants’ residence and where key events occurred |
| Proper venue for FTCA claims under § 1402(b) | FTCA claims may be brought where plaintiff resides (CDCA) or where act/omission occurred | No meaningful opposing venue argument in the record | FTCA venue is proper in the Central District of California and in the Eastern District of New York (where acts occurred) |
| Court authority to transfer sua sponte under § 1404(a) | Plaintiff did not oppose sua sponte transfer in the record | No meaningful opposing argument; transfer power recognized by courts | District courts may transfer sua sponte under § 1404(a); court has broad discretion to do so |
| Whether transfer to EDNY is appropriate under § 1404(a) factors | Plaintiff chose SDNY, but many operative facts relate to EDNY | No meaningful opposing argument in the record | Transfer to EDNY is warranted: locus of operative facts, convenience of witnesses, documents, and interest of justice favor transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages remedy against federal officers)
- D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (district courts have broad discretion under § 1404(a) to assess convenience)
- Lead Indus. Ass’n, Inc. v. OSHA, 610 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1979) (§ 1404(a) language permits courts to transfer sua sponte)
- Keitt v. N.Y. City, 882 F. Supp. 2d 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (enumerating § 1404(a) convenience factors)
- N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaFarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing similar forum non conveniens/transfer considerations)