JUSTE v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE et al

Filing 2

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York FORTHWITH. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 05/16/18. (alj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANDRE JUSTE,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL
SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 18-549
Judge Cathy Bissoon

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
On May 1, 2018, Plaintiff Andre Juste filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis in which he attached a Complaint. (Doc. 1). In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he
is currently being detained in Batavia, New York, pending immigration removal proceedings.
Plaintiff is suing the United States Postal Services (“USPS”), an unidentified mail clerk
(“Unidentified Clerk” or “Clerk”) and the mail clerk’s office (“Clerk’s Office”). Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant USPS is located at 1720 Market Street, St. Louis, MO 63182, Defendant Clerk’s
residency is unknown, but works in Batavia, New York, and that Defendant Clerk’s Office is
located in the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility.1
In cases such as this one—where subject matter jurisdiction is not founded on the parties’
diversity—the federal venue statute holds venue proper only in the following districts:
(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
The Court is examining venue sua sponte. It offers no opinion as to the merits of the
underlying cause of action, including whether Plaintiff can state a claim against the named
Defendants.
1

1

this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s
personal jurisdiction with respect to such matters.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
The Court finds that venue is improper in this district. Rather, venue is appropriate in the
United States District Court for the Western District of New York because Plaintiff alleges that a
“substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” there, i.e., where
his mail was allegedly confiscated. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).2 In contrast, no events or omissions
occurred in this district and no Defendant is alleged to reside in this district. In sum, this district
is an improper venue under § 1391(b) for the claims brought in this lawsuit.
Having determined that venue in this case is improper in this district, the Court must
decide whether to dismiss the case or transfer the case to a district where venue is properly laid
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). That statute provides:
The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong
division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such
case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.
As in initial matter, it is clear that this action could have been brought in the Western
District of New York. Next, the Court must choose whether to transfer the case to the Western
District of New York or dismiss the case outright. “In most cases of improper venue, the courts
conclude that it is in the interest of justice to transfer to a proper forum rather than to dismiss the
litigation.” 14D Wright & Miller § 3827 at 540 (4th Ed. 2013); see also Holiday v. Bally’s Park
Place, Inc., No. 06-4588, 2007 WL 2600877, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 10, 2007) (“Generally,
transfer to a proper forum is preferable to outright dismissal because it prevents repetitive motion

The Court evaluates this under the second prong of the venue statute as Plaintiff contends that
all of the Defendants do not reside in the same state. Given the allegations, however, it is quite
likely that Plaintiff is incorrect in that assessment and all Defendants do, in fact, reside in New
York.

2

2

practice and unnecessary costs.”). This case is no different. Transfer in this case will save the
time and expense associated with initiating a new lawsuit. See Decker v. Dyson, 165 Fed. Appx.
951, 954 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (district court may sua sponte transfer under § 1406(a)).
For the reasons set forth herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall
TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York
FORTHWITH.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 16, 2018

s/Cathy Bissoon
.
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record
Via First-Class United States Mail to:
ANDRE JUSTE
4250 Federal Drive
Batavia, NY 14020

3