Opinion
No. 00 Civ. 2525 (JSR)(FM).
October 31, 2000.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. Introduction
This pro se civil rights action was instituted in April 2000 by plaintiff Min. A. Shahid F. Muhammad, a/k/a "Paul Farrad Simmons" ("Muhammad"), against prison officials and staff members of the Orange County Correctional Facility ("Orange County"). Muhammad, a member of the Nation of Islam ("NOI") currently lodged at the Fishkill Correctional Facility, alleges that he was denied various NOI services, in violation of his First Amendment rights, while incarcerated at Orange County.
Muhammad is no stranger to this Court. In fact, court records indicate that he has brought a raft of suits under various names, including Muhammad v. James A. Thomas Center, et al., No. 90 Civ. 8001 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 1999) (dismissed for lack of prosecution);Farrakhan-Muhammad v. Jacobson, No. 99 Civ. 838 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1999) (dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915); Simmons v. Travis, No. 98 Civ. 3033 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 1998) (same);Farrakhan-Muhammad v. Jacobs, No. 97 Civ. 8185 (TPG)(S.D.N.Y, Nov. 5, 1997) (same); Farrakhan-Muhammad v. Jacobson, No. 97 Civ. 1894 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 1997) (same); Muhammad v. New York City Dep't of Correction, No. 96 Civ. 0746 (LAP) (S.D.N Y July 3, 1996)(same); Muhammad v. Artuz, No. 95 Civ. 9934 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 1996) (disposition unknown); Muhammad v. Soto, No. 96 Civ. 4244 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 1996) (dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915); Muhammad v. Bronx Div. of Parole, No. 96 Civ. 4243 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 1996)(same); Muhammad v. Berry, No. 93 Civ. 2789 (JES) (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 1996) (defendants' motion for summary judgment granted); Muhammad v. North Facility (OBCC), No. 92 Civ. 0578 (CLB) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 1996) (dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915); Muhammad v. Reich, No. 95 Civ. 2318 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 1995) (dismissed with prejudice); Muhammad v. New York State Dep't of Correctional Servs., No. 95 Civ. 9550 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 1995) (transferred sua sponte to the Northern District of New York); Muhammad v. Sielaff, No. 91 Civ. 7275 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 1995)(defendants' motion for summary judgment granted); Farrakhan-Muhammad v. United States, No. 95 Civ. 2279 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 1995) (dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915); Muhammad v. City of New York, No. 91 Civ. 6333 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 1995) (disposition unknown); Muhammad v. A.R.D.C./Dep't of Corrections, No. 90 Civ. 4000 (PKL) (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 1994) (order of settlement and voluntary dismissal); Muhammad v. George Motchan Detention Center/C-73, No. 90 Civ. 4671 (RJW) (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 1993) (dismissed for lack of prosecution); Muhammad v. Staves, No. 93 Civ. 2318 (CLB) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 1993) (dismissed sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915); Muhammed v. Wali, No. 90 Civ. 8001 (LAP) (S.D.N Y Nov. 12, 1992) (dismissed for lack of prosecution); In re Muhammad, No. 91 Civ. 6205 (CLB) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 1991) (dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915); Muhammad v. A.R.D.C./Dep't of Corrections, et al., No. 90 Civ. 4671 (RJW) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 1990) (dismissed for lack of prosecution).
The defendants have moved to reassign this case to the White Plains Courthouse, pursuant to Rules 21 and 22 of the Rules for the Division of Business in the Southern District ("Local Business Rules"), or, in the alternative, to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and (c). For the reasons that follow, this motion is denied.
II. Background
A. The Complaint
The gravamen of Muhammad's complaint is that he requested — and prison officials summarily denied — his requests for such NOI religious services as the delivery of a 90-minute live lecture by an NOI minister to all Orange County inmates, special arrangements to enable him to observe a day of atonement in October 1999, and special arrangements for certain religious fast days between December 1, 1999 and January 1, 2000. Muhammad also alleges that he and other inmates requested and were improperly denied permission to have an NOI minister officiate at regular Friday services, despite the fact that prison officials permitted clergy of other faiths to officiate at regularly-held services at the facility. Finally, Muhammad alleges that the defendants have threatened him with physical harm, assaulted him, and fabricated and prosecuted false misbehavior charges in retaliation for his having filed prison grievances and written letters to persons outside of the prison complaining about conditions there.
Muhammad previously brought an unsuccessful action against City and State prison officials challenging alleged restrictions on his First Amendment right to exercise his religion freely. See Muhammad v. City of New York, 904 F. Supp. 61 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), appeal dismissed, 126 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1997).
Muhammad seeks various forms of relief; including a transfer to the Bronx House of Detention, a "temporary/permanent restraining order against defendants while the complaint is pending," a federal investigation into the defendants' activities, an order directing Orange County officials to provide regular Friday prayer services, rescission of all misbehavior reports lodged against him, and an award of $50,000 in "punitive, nominal and compensatory damages" against each defendant.
B. Defendants' Motion
The defendants request that this case be reassigned to White Plains pursuant to Local Business Rules 21 and 22, or, in the alternative, that venue be transferred there pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and (c). In their view, because the incidents underlying this pro se complaint all occurred in Orange County, where all the defendants and key fact witnesses reside, Local Business Rule 21 "dictates that this Court must. . . reassign this case to White Plains from Manhattan." (Defs.'s Mem. of Law at 5). Defendants further argue that the Court should exercise its discretion under Local Business Rule 22 to reassign this case to White Plains should the Court determine that it is not required to do so pursuant to Rule 21. (Id. at 6-7). Finally, the defendants maintain, in the alternative, that this Court should exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to transfer this case to White Plains for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. (Id. 9-11). In that regard, the defendants contend that the "scheduling, management, and daily functioning" of the Orange County facility would be unnecessarily burdened if the trial were to be conducted in lower Manhattan because the named defendants and all of their fact witnesses are Orange County employees who would be required to travel at least six hours per day to attend court. This, the defendants aver, would pose an "extreme hardship" to Orange County. (See Affidavit of Theodore J. Catletti, sworn to on May 17, 2000 ("Catletti Aff."), at ¶ 16).
Despite the passage of ample time, Muhammad has not responded to the defendants' motion.
III. DISCUSSION
Local Civil Rule 6.1(b) requires opposing papers to be filed within ten days of service of a motion. Although pro se plaintiffs are accorded great liberality, many months have passed without any submisisons by Muhammad, and it is reasonable to assume that he does not oppose the motion to transfer or reassign this case. This ordinarily would permit the Court to grant the motion as unopposed. See George v. McLeod, 1998 WL 661495 at *1-*2 (E.D.N Y Aug. 19, 1988) (dismissing complaint in pro se civil rights action pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1 for failure to file opposing papers). Here, however, the Court's own rules expressly preclude the relief requested. Accordingly, the defendants' motion must be denied.
A. Business Division Rules
Business Division Rule 21 provides, in part, that:
A civil case shall be designated for assignment to White Plains if:
(i) [t]he claim arose in whole or in major part in the counties of Duchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan and Westchester (the "Northern Counties") and at least one of the parties resides in the Northern Counties. . . .
Citing this language, the defendants suggest that this case was erroneously assigned to the Pearl Street Courthouse and must be reassigned. The Local Business Rules, however, "are adopted for the internal management of the case load of the court and shall not be deemed to vest any rights in litigants or their attorneys." See Introduction to Local Business Rules; Ginsberg v. Valhalla Anesthesia Assocs., 171 F.R.D. 159 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Accordingly, the mandatory language of Local Business Rule 21 affords the defendants no basis — much less a mandatory right — to have this case reassigned to White Plains.
Under Local Business Rule 22, counsel for any party other than the plaintiff may nevertheless "move for the reassignment of the case to the other place of holding court . . . in the interest of justice or sound judicial administration." Thus, Rule 22 vests this Court with the discretion to consider whether any special circumstances exist which would warrant reassignment. In this case, those circumstances relate to the negative effect that a trial in lower Manhattan allegedly would have on Orange County. Although it is undoubtedly true that the commutation time of Orange County employees would be lengthier absent a transfer, the defendants would likely be unavailable to Orange County throughout the trial even if it were to be held in White Plains because their attendance in court is likely to occupy their entire work shift each day. Moreover, although the defendants have not really delineated who their witnesses will be, many of those individuals, too, will likely have to be replaced for any tours when they are required to be in court, given the impossibility of predicting how long it will take for them to be called and to complete their testimony. Moreover, while a rush hour trip between Goshen and lower Manhattan is admittedly lengthy, the Court takes judicial notice that the one-way commute is closer to two hours than three. In short, while the situs of this case may be inconvenient for the defendants and their witnesses, the increased burden in the event of a trial will scarcely cause Orange County to shut down.
More importantly, Local Business Rule 25, which is not cited by the defendants, provides that prisoner civil rights cases "are assigned proportionally to all judges of the court, whether sitting at White Plains or Foley Square." Because the vast majority of prison facilities in this district are located in the northern counties, proportional assignment would be impossible if cases from the northern counties assigned to district judges in lower Manhattan were to be reassigned every time the convenience of the parties and the witnesses augured in favor of such a transfer. Thus, because Rule 25, rather than Rule 22, appears to provide specific guidance as to how this prisoner civil rights case should be assigned, the defendants' motion under Local Business Rule 22 is denied.
A former note to Rule 25 provided that, effective April 27, 1995, prisoner civil rights cases would not be assigned to judges designated to sit in White Plains. See, e.g., Covington v. Westchester County Jail, No. 96 Civ. 7551, 1998 WL 26190, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2998)(Scheindlin, J.). I am advised by the Clerk's Office that this note has since been withdrawn.
I note that several other judges have granted motions to transfer or reassign to the White Plains Courthouse prisoner civil rights cases involving Orange County. It does not appear that any of those judges considered the effect of Local Business Rule 25. See, e.g., Nixon v. Diehm, No. 99 Civ. 9843, 2000 WL 280009 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2000);Nicholas v. Orange County Jail, No. 97 Civ. 6916, 1999 WL 292292 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 1999).
Finally, the defendants have moved, in the alternative, to transfer this case to White Plains pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and (c), which provide that:
(a) 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.
* * *
(c) A district court may order any civil action to be tried at any place within the division in which it is pending.
The difficulty with this aspect of the defendants' argument is that there are no divisions within this District. Section 112 of Title 28, United States Code, sets forth the counties comprising the Southern District of New York, stating that court "shall be held in New York, White Plains, and in the Middletown-Wallkill area of Orange County or such nearby location as may be deemed appropriate." This description of the District differs from the description of other districts which have separate divisions. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 93(a)("The Northern District of Illinois comprises two divisions. (1) . . . Court for the Eastern Division shall be held at Chicago. (2) . . . Court for the Western Division shall be held at Freeport and Rockford."). Moreover, the Southern District of New York has never created divisions of its own pursuant to local rule. See 15 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3809 (1986). Accordingly, because there are no divisions in this District, 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) and (c) do not provide a basis for this action to be transferred to or within such a division.
There is, of course, no courthouse yet in the vicinity of Middletown.
In an effort to overcome this problem, the defendants cite the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1869(e), which defines a "division" of a district as including ". . . in judicial districts where there are no statutory divisions, such counties, parishes, or similar political subdivisions surrounding the places where court is held as the district court plan shall determine." The introductory text of Section 1869 nevertheless makes plain that the definition is applicable for purposes of that chapter only. Section 1869 is part of Chapter 121 of Title 28, which deals with trial by jury. Obviously, if Congress had intended for this definition to be used in the present context, it would not have inserted language restricting its applicability.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion for reassignment, or, in the alternative, a transfer of venue to White Plains is denied.
Additionally, and in light of this disposition, the Court will hold a telephone pretrial conference on Wednesday, November 15, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., to discuss scheduling. Counsel for the defendants shall initiate this call and take whatever steps are required to ensure that plaintiff Muhammad can participate.