Dalbis v. Pubic Employees of Security and Intelligence Services of France and Europe
Filing
7
TRANSFER ORDER: The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Whether Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed further without prepayment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court. A summons shall not issue from this Court. This order closes this case in this court. The Court certifies, under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 5/7/2024) (ks) Transmission to Office of the Clerk of Court for processing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LOUIS-ALEXANDRE NOEL ALBERT
DALBIS,
Plaintiff,
-against-
24-CV-2527 (LTS)
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES OF SECURITY
AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICES OF
FRANCE AND EUROPE; NATIONAL
GENDARMERIE; LAURANT MAUVECECILE,
TRANSFER ORDER
Defendants.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is currently a resident of Brooklyn, Kings County, New York, 1 brings this
pro se action under the Torture Victim Protection Act (“TVPA”), alleging that Defendants
violated his rights in France and, possibly, at an unspecified location in the United States. The
Court also understands the complaint to be asserting claims under the Alien Tort Statute. Named
as Defendants are “Public Employees of Security and Intelligence Services of France and
Europe,” the National Gendarmerie of France, and Laurant Mauve-Cecile. Plaintiff alleges that
all Defendants resides in France. For the following reasons, this action is transferred to the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
DISCUSSION
The Court construes the complaint as asserting claims under the TVPA and Alien Tort
Statute. Under the Alien Tort Statute, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any
civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of
1
Brooklyn is in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c).
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350. Congress created an express cause of action for Alien Tort
Statute violations by passing the TVPA, Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U.S. 241, 265-66 (2018),
that is, it “creat[ed] an express cause of action for victims of torture and extrajudicial killing in
violation of international law,” id. at 242. The torture or extrajudicial killing must be committed
“under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350
note § (2)(a).
The Alien Tort Statute, also known as the Alien Tort Claims Act, and the TVPA do not
contain their own venue provisions. See Shaoulian-Tehrani v. Khatami, No. 06-CV-6868 (DC),
2008 WL 1790386, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2008). Under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391, a civil action against a foreign state may be brought:
(1) in any judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the
subject of the action is situated; . . . (3) in any judicial district in which the agency
or instrumentality is licensed to do business or is doing business, if the action is
brought against an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in [28
U.S.C. § 1603(b)]; or (4) in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia if the action is brought against a foreign state or political subdivision
thereof.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(f). Otherwise, under § 1391, a civil action may be brought in:
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents
of the State in which the district is located; (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 property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if
there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in
this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s
personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
§ 1391(b). For venue purposes, a “natural person” resides in the district where the person is
domiciled, and an “entity with the capacity to sue and be sued” resides in any judicial district
where it is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.
§ 1391(c)(1), (2). But “a defendant not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial
2
district, and the joinder of such a defendant shall be disregarded in determining where the action
may be brought with respect to other defendants.” Section 1391(c)(3).
Plaintiff sues (1) “Public Employees of Security and Intelligence Services of France and
Europe”; (2) France’s National Gendarmerie, which the Court understands to be a French
military force with law enforcement duties; and (3) Laurant Mauve-Cecile, an individual.
Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants reside in France. While Plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to
understand, he clearly alleges that a substantial amount of the events giving rise to his claims
occurred in France. Although some events may have occurred after Plaintiff relocated to the
United States, Plaintiff does not reside in this District, and he alleges no facts suggesting that any
of the events giving rise to his claims occurred in this District. 2
Because Plaintiff’s claims against the French National Gendarmerie arise from events
that allegedly occurred in France, the only proper venue for those claims is the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia. 3 See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(f)(4). Plaintiff’s claims against
persons residing in France can be brought in any federal district court. See § 1391(c)(3). Thus,
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is the only venue in which
Plaintiff’s Alien Tort Statute/TVPA claims – his claims against the National Gendarmerie and
individuals residing in France – can be considered.
2
This judicial district, the Southern District of New York, is comprised of the following
New York State counties: (1) New York (New York City Borough of Manhattan); (2) Bronx
(New York City Borough of the Bronx); (3) Westchester; (4) Dutchess; (5) Rockland;
(6) Orange; (7) Putnam; and (8) Sullivan. 28 U.S.C. § 112(b).
3
This Court declines to address whether Plaintiff’s Alien Tort Statute/TVPA claims
against the National Gendarmerie must be dismissed under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act (“FSIA”).
3
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), even if a case is filed in a jurisdiction where venue is proper,
a court may transfer the case to any other district where it might have been brought “[f]or the
convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In
determining whether transfer is appropriate, courts consider the following factors: (1) the
convenience of witnesses; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the locus of operative facts; (4)
the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (5) the location of
relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (6) the relative means of
the parties; (7) the forum’s familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded to the
plaintiff’s choice of forum; (9) trial efficiency; and (10) the interest of justice, based on the
totality of circumstances. Keitt v. N.Y. City, 882 F. Supp. 2d 412, 458-59 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see
also N.Y. Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaFarge No. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir. 2010)
(setting forth similar factors).
Under Section 1404(a), transfer of this action appears to be appropriate. Plaintiff’s claims
appear to arise from acts carried out by the French National Gendarmerie, and acts carried out by
individuals, including French government officials, in France and, possibly, in unspecified
locations in the United States. Because the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia is the only venue in which Plaintiff can assert his Alien Tort Statute/TVPA claims
against the National Gendarmerie and the individual defendants, the Court transfers this action to
that court. See § 1404(a); D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106 (2d Cir. 2006)
(“District courts have broad discretion in making determinations of convenience under Section
1404(a) and notions of convenience and fairness are considered on a case-by-case basis.”).
4
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia. Whether Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed further without
prepayment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court. A summons shall not
issue from this Court. This order closes this case in this court.
The Court certifies, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 7, 2024
New York, New York
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?