Jacobs v. Fillipi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
LISA JACOBS, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	CIVIL ACTION
) 	NO. 18-11558-WGY
JOSEPH FILLIPI, et al. 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
)
YOUNG, D.J. 	October 11, 2018
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
For the reasons stated below, the court orders that this
action be transferred to the United States District Court for
the District of New Hampshire.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On July 24, 2018, the clerk received for filing a complaint
filed by Lisa Jacobs (“Jacobs”). 	With her complaint, Jacobs
filed motions for emergency waiver of the filing fee and for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 	In her motion for an
emergency waiver, she states that she seeks to file this action
before the expiration of the applicable limitations period.
Jacobs represents that she is a Massachusetts citizen now in
custody of the Cheshire County Department of Corrections in
Keene, New Hampshire. Jacobs’s complaint asserts both federal
question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity
Case 1:18-cv-00948 Document 6 Filed 10/11/18 Page 1 of 5

[2]
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as bases for this
court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
The two-page, handwritten complaint recounts events
surrounding Jacobs’ July 25, 2015 arrest by the Fitzwilliam
police in Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire. 	The complaint names the
following nine defendants: the Fitzwilliam Police Department and
two Fitzwilliam police officers (Joseph Fillipi and Hailey Rae);
the Town of Fitzwilliam; the Cheshire County Sheriff Eli Rivera;
Cheshire County Attorney Chris McLaughlin; the Cheshire County
Department of Correction; and the New Hampshire State Police;
the State of New Hampshire.
The Court’s records indicate that this action is one of six
complaints filed against New Hampshire defendants concerning
alleged civil rights violations. 	See Jacobs v. Fillipi, et al.,
C.A. No. 18-11505-JCB (filed Jul. 18, 2018); Jacobs v. Fillipi,
et al., C.A. No. 18-11533-NMG (filed Jul. 23, 2018); Jacobs v.
Fillipi, et al., C.A. No. 18-11551-DJC (filed Jul. 24, 2018);
Jacobs v. Fillipi, et al., C.A. No. 18-11558-WGY (filed Jul. 25,
2018); 	Jacobs v. Fillipi, et al., C.A. No. 18-11603-LTS (filed
Jul. 31, 2018); and Jacobs v. Fillipi, et al., C.A. No. 18-
11604-ADB (filed Jul. 31, 2018).
Case 1:18-cv-00948 Document 6 Filed 10/11/18 Page 2 of 5

[3]
II. 	DISCUSSION
Although Jacobs contends that subject matter jurisdiction
lies in the District of Massachusetts, venue is not proper in
this court under the relevant venue statue.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), 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).
Here, subsections (1) and (3) of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) do not
establish venue in the District of Massachusetts because none of
the defendants reside in Massachusetts. 	“For the purposes of
venue, state officers ‘reside’ in the district where they
perform their official duties.” 	Smolen v. Brauer, 177 F.Supp.3d
797, 801 (W.D.N.Y. 2016) citing Crenshaw v. Syed, 686 F.Supp.2d
234, 237 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) (quotation omitted)). 	Likewise,
subsection (2) does not provide for venue within this district
because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim” did not occur in the District of
Massachusetts.
Case 1:18-cv-00948 Document 6 Filed 10/11/18 Page 3 of 5

[4]
Although “there is a strong presumption in favor of
plaintiff’s choice of forum,” U.S. ex rel. Ondis v. City of
Woonsocket, RI, 480 F. Supp. 2d 434, 436 (D. Mass. 2007) (citing
Coady v. Ashcraft-Gerel, 223 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2000)), here
the defendants do not reside in this District and Jacobs does
not allege that a substantial part of the events arose in this
District. 	Thus, venue is not proper in this court under 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b).
In light of the above, the court finds that it is in the
interest of justice to transfer this action to the District of
New Hampshire for further proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
(providing, in relevant part, that: “For the convenience of
parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district
court may transfer any civil action to any other district or
division where it might have been brought....”).
In view of this transfer, this court declines to rule on
Jacobs’ pending motions and takes no position as to whether this
action is duplicative of any of Jacobs’ other recently filed
complaints.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, venue lies in the District of New Hampshire,
see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), and this action is TRANSFERRED to the
United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire,
see 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Case 1:18-cv-00948 Document 6 Filed 10/11/18 Page 4 of 5

[5]
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to
the United States District Court for the District of New
Hampshire. 	This order closes this case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ William G. Young
WILLIAM G. YOUNG
DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:18-cv-00948 Document 6 Filed 10/11/18 Page 5 of 5