Ramirez v. City of New York et al
| New York Eastern District Court | |
| Judge: | Hector Gonzalez |
| Case #: | 1:25-cv-01430 |
| Nature of Suit | 440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights |
| Cause | 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Case Filed: | Mar 13, 2025 |
| Terminated: | Mar 21, 2025 |
| Last checked: Thursday Mar 13, 2025 2:04 PM EDT |
|
Defendant
City of New York
|
|
|
Defendant
John and Jane Doe 1 through 10
|
|
|
Plaintiff
Yanick Ramirez
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 9 hours ago |
| Tuesday, March 25, 2025 | ||
|
utility
Transfer Case Opened
Tue 03/25 3:17 PM
Case transferred from New York Eastern has been opened in Southern District of New York as case 1:25-cv-02457, filed 03/25/2025. (TLH) |
||
| Friday, March 21, 2025 | ||
|
order
Order(Other)
Mon 03/24 10:51 AM
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE: In Plaintiff's Complaint, the sole basis he states to establish venue in the Eastern District of New York is "that this is the District in which the claim arose." See ECF No.1 para. 4. The Court disagrees. The events giving rise to Plaintiff's claim occurred at the Rose M. Singer Enhanced Supervised Housing on Rikers Island, see id. para. 1, which is in Bronx County and therefore in the Southern District of New York. See, e.g. , Brooks v. Strack , No. 98-cv-6528, 1999 WL 672949, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 1999) ("Because Rikers Island is in Bronx County, the majority of courts have held that it is in the Southern District."); Keish v. New York , No. 17-cv-7567, 2018 WL 2943567, at *2-3 (E.D.N.Y. June 12, 2018) ("Petitioner was detained on Rikers Island at the time he filed his petition, which is located in the Southern District of New York."); Thompson v. United States , No. 01-cv-1381, 2001 WL 1338915 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2001) ("Rikers Island is in the Southern District"); Henry v. Murphy , No. 17-cv-5852, 2018 WL 7291456, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2018) (Rikers Island is "within the Southern District"), report and recommendation adopted , 2019 WL 289865 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2019). Contrary to Plaintiff's assertions, the Eastern District of New York does not have concurrent jurisdiction with the Southern District of New York over Rikers Island simply because the island is located within the waters of Bronx County. See ECF No.5 at 2. As Plaintiff would have it, the Southern District of New York would have jurisdiction over all counties of the Eastern District, which are on islands, and the Eastern District of New York would even have jurisdiction over the island of Manhattan. That takes the concept of concurrent jurisdiction over waters beyond its breaking point. As the court explained in Brooks , "when Congress created concurrent jurisdiction over [the waters within the counties of Bronx and New York], it intended the avoidance of difficult venue questions in maritime-connected cases arising in such waters, not that two district courts would have jurisdiction over the same area of land." 1999 WL 672949, at *4. Plaintiff's assertion that venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York is premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), which provides that a civil action may be brought in "a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred[.]" However, the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claim occurred entirely in the Southern District of New York. In the interest of justice, and in lieu of dismissing Plaintiff's claim, the Court hereby transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). That provision of Rule 83.1 of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of New York which requires a seven-day delay is waived. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to effectuate the transfer of this action and close this case. Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 3/21/2025. (DLMP) |
||
|
transfer
Case Transferred Out - District Transfer
Mon 03/24 10:53 AM
Case transferred to District of Southern District of New York. Original file, certified copy of transfer order, and docket sheet sent. ALL FILINGS ARE TO BE MADE IN THE TRANSFER COURT, DO NOT DOCKET TO THIS CASE. (DLMP) |
||
| Thursday, March 20, 2025 | ||
| 5 | 5
misc
Response to Order to Show Cause
Thu 03/20 5:09 PM
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Yanick Ramirez (Klein, Brett) |
|
| Thursday, March 13, 2025 | ||
| 4 | 4
service
Summons Issued
Thu 03/13 2:24 PM
Summons Issued as to City of New York. (KD) |
|
| 3 | 3
misc
Quality Control Check - Attorney Case Opening
Thu 03/13 2:22 PM
This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (KD) |
|
| 2 | 2
misc
Clerks Notice of Rule 73
Thu 03/13 2:21 PM
Clerk's Notice Re: Consent. A United States Magistrate Judge has been assigned to this case and is available to conduct all proceedings. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent.The form may also be accessed at the following link:[LINK:https://img.nyed.uscourts.gov/files/forms/MJConsentForm.pdf] (KD) |
|
| 1 | 1
cmp
Complaint
Thu 03/13 1:59 PM
COMPLAINT against City of New York, John and Jane Doe 1 through 10 filing fee $ 405, receipt number ANYEDC-18851827 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -YES,, filed by Yanick Ramirez. (Klein, Brett) |
|
|
Att: 1
Civil Cover Sheet,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Proposed Summons
|
||
|
utility
Case Assigned/Reassigned
Thu 03/13 2:20 PM
Case Assigned to Judge Hector Gonzalez. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our[LINK:website] . Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (KD) |
||
|
order
Order to Show Cause
Thu 03/13 2:52 PM
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: On or before March 20, 2025, Plaintiff shall show cause why venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), since it appears from the face of the complaint that the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claim occurred at Rikers Island, which is located in the Southern District of New York. See, e.g. , Keish v. New York , No. 17-cv-7567, 2018 WL 2943567, at *2-3 (E.D.N.Y. June 12, 2018) (transferring case to the Southern District of New York because "Petitioner was detained on Rikers Island at the time he filed his petition, which is located in the Southern District of New York"); Brooks v. Strack , No. 98-cv-6528, 1999 WL 672949, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 1999) (noting that "[b]ecause Rikers Island is in Bronx County, the majority of courts have held that it is in the Southern District" and holding that Rikers Island was not covered by statutory language giving the Eastern and Southern Districts concurrent jurisdiction over "the waters within the counties of Bronx and New York" and "the waters within the Eastern District," and that therefore "Rikers Island is within the Southern District and outside the territorial limits of the Eastern District"); Thompson v. United States , No. 01-cv-1381, 2001 WL 1338915 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2001) ("Rikers Island is in the Southern District"); Henry v. Murphy , No. 17-cv-5852, 2018 WL 7291456, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2018) (Rikers Island is "within the Southern District"), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 289865 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2019). The Court warns Plaintiff that if he fails to show cause why venue is proper, the Court will likely transfer this case to the Southern District of New York "in the interest of justice," pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 3/13/2025. (KM) |
||