Delpilar v. Metropolitan Detention Center et al

Filing 8

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN SUMMARY ORDER, the Clerk of the Court is directed to TRANSFER this action to the U. S. District Court for th e Southern District of New York for further proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1406(a). The provision of Rule 83.1 of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of New York which requires a seven-day delay is hereby waived. The Clerk of t he Court is also directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order and the Attached Written Summary Order to pro se plaintiff and, upon transfer to the Southern District of New York, to close this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 11/10/2011. (Irizarry, Dora)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------x
ARISTOTLE DELPILAR, pro se,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
METROPOLITAN DETENTION
:
CENTER, Legal Department; BUREAU
:
OF PRISONS; HONORABLE GEORGE
:
DANIELS, U.S. District Court, Southern
:
District of New York,
:
:
Defendants.
:
--------------------------------------------------------x
DORA L. IRIZARRY, United States District Judge:

SUMMARY ORDER
11-CV-4373 (DLI)(JMA)

Pro se Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center
(“MDC”), brings this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the MDC Legal
Department, Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and the Honorable George Daniels of the U.S. District
Court of the Southern District of New York (“S.D.N.Y.”), alleging that he was incarcerated
beyond his lawful release date and seeking monetary compensation for those days that he was
detained beyond his lawful release date. Plaintiff further alleges that Judge Daniels “failed to
duly and timely sign off on the Judgment and Commitment Order following [Plaintiff’s]
sentencing . . . and BOP cannot complete its prompt sentence computation unless it receives the
order from the Judge.” (Compl. Affidavit at ¶ 2.)
In reviewing plaintiff’s complaint, the court is mindful that, “[a] document filed pro se is
to be liberally construed and a pro se [pleading], however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007). Accordingly, the court interprets the complaint “to raise the strongest arguments that

[it] suggest[s].”

Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006)

(emphasis omitted).
For the reasons set forth below, this action is transferred to the United States District
Court for the S.D.N.Y. because, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil rights action may:
be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all
defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial
part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial
district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the
action may otherwise be brought.
Here, Plaintiff alleges that the events or omissions giving rise to his claim stem from errors
relating to the Judgment and Commitment order issued by a judge of the S.D.N.Y. Accordingly,
the Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the
S.D.N.Y. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1406(a). The provision of Rule 83.1 of the Local Rules of
the Eastern District of New York which requires a seven-day delay is hereby waived.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
November 10, 2011
/s/
DORA L. IRIZARRY
United States District Judge