Macon v. Philadelphia MS Police Department

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi
DecidedDecember 3, 2024
Docket3:24-cv-00807
StatusUnknown

This text of Macon v. Philadelphia MS Police Department (Macon v. Philadelphia MS Police Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Macon v. Philadelphia MS Police Department, (S.D. Miss. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VAN PATRICK MACON; FREDDICK E. MACON, Plaintiffs, 24-CV-9170 (LTS) -against- TRANSFER ORDER PHILADELPHIA MS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiffs, who reside in Neshoba County, Mississippi, bring this action pro se. This action arises out of criminal charges in Mississippi against various members of the Macon family. For the following reasons, the Court transfers this action, under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. DISCUSSION The general venue statute provides that 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. 28 U.S.C. § 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1), (2). Plaintiffs allege that their son was arrested and thereafter Detective Shae Elliot falsely arrested them. Attorney Wade White was involved in bringing these “fake charges” against them. (ECF 1 at 1.). Plaintiffs attach a newspaper article from the Neshoba Democrat titled, “Parents charged with witness tampering.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs contend that Neshoba County District

Attorney Steven Kilgore attempted to pressure them into pleading guilty to “a made up lie.” (Id. at 1.). Plaintiffs sue the Philadelphia Mississippi Police Department, Detective Shae Elliot, attorney Wade White, Bondsman Sabrina Houston, and others. Venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(1), based on the residence of defendants, because all defendants are not residents of New York. Plaintiffs allege that the events giving rise to their claims took place in Philadelphia, Mississippi, which is in Neshoba County. (ECF 1 at 1-2.) Because Plaintiffs allege that the events giving rise to their claims took place outside this district, venue is not proper here under Section 1391(b)(2). If venue is improper in the district where a case was brought, the Court “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Plaintiffs’ claims arose in Neshoba County, which is in the Southern District of Mississippi. 28 U.S.C. § 104(b)(1). Accordingly, venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Southern District of Mississippi, and in the interest of justice, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Whether Plaintiffs 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 the case in the Southern District of New York. The Court certifies, pursuant to 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: December 3, 2024 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Macon v. Philadelphia MS Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macon-v-philadelphia-ms-police-department-mssd-2024.