Jacobs v. Fillipi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
LISA JACOBS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH FILLIPI, et al.,
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
C.A. No. 18-11604-ADB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BURROUGHS, D.J.
For the reasons set forth 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 30, 2018, the clerk received for filing a complaint filed by Lisa Jacobs
(“Jacobs”). With her complaint, Jacobs filed an affidavit and motion for emergency service and
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Jacobs represents that she is a Massachusetts citizen now in
the 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 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as bases for this court’s subject matter
jurisdiction.
The seventeen-page, handwritten complaint recounts events surrounding Jacobs’ July 25,
2015 arrest by the Fitzwilliam police in Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire and her subsequent
litigation in the state courts of New Hampshire. The complaint names the following 16
defendants: the Fitzwilliam Police Department and two Fitzwilliam police officers (Joseph Fillipi
Case 1:18-cv-00920 Document 6 Filed 10/09/18 Page 1 of 4

2
and Hailey Rae); the Town of Fitzwilliam; the Cheshire County Sheriff Eli Rivera; Cheshire
County Attorney Chris McLaughlin; the Cheshire County Department of Correction; the New
Hampshire State Police; the State of New Hampshire; John Doe, a real person whose identity is
not yet know to Jacobs; Former New Hampshire Attorney General Joseph Foster; New
Hampshire Attorney General Gordon MacDonald; Robert Quinn, New Hampshire State Police;
New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu; United States Senator Maggie Hassan; and Richard
Tracy of the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office.
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).
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).
Case 1:18-cv-00920 Document 6 Filed 10/09/18 Page 2 of 4

3
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.
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 motion and takes
no position as to whether this action is duplicative of any of Jacobs’ other recently filed
complaints.
Case 1:18-cv-00920 Document 6 Filed 10/09/18 Page 3 of 4

4
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).
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.
October 9, 2018 	/s/ Allison D. Burroughs
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:18-cv-00920 Document 6 Filed 10/09/18 Page 4 of 4