Freeman v. City of Newton et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DAVID A. FREEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:25-cv-3159-KKM-CPT
CITY OF NEWTON,
MASSACHUSETTS et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________
ORDER
David Freeman sues the City of Newton, Massachusetts, the Newton
Police Department, the Newton District Court, and multiple officials who work
for the police department, the court, or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Compl. (Doc. 1). Freeman alleges violations of his constitutional rights,
obstruction of federal judicial proceedings, and seeks a declaratory judgment
and injunctive relief. Id. ¶¶ 33–49. Freeman claims that venue is proper here
under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because some of the defendants “mail[ed] criminal
process to [Freeman]” in Florida, and “the effects of” the defendants’
“unconstitutional conduct are felt here” by Freeman. Id. ¶ 6. Thus, Freeman
claims, “a substantial portion of the events giving rise to these claims occurred
in this district.” Id. at 3. Not so.
Case 1:25-cv-13786-LTS Document 9 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 3

2
This dispute arises out of events in Massachusetts. Freeman alleges that
the defendants took a series of unlawful actions against him, including failing
to adequately investigate a burglary of Freeman’s Massachusetts-based
company, withholding transcripts from judicial proceedings in Massachusetts
related to the burglary, unlawfully seizing firearms belonging to Freeman, and
fabricating official records. See id. ¶¶ 15–16, 18, 20–21. At least some of the
defendants’ conduct was purportedly motivated by a desire to retaliate against
Freeman for filing a lawsuit in Massachusetts. Id. ¶¶ 14–32. Other than
contacting Freeman at his home in Florida regarding court proceedings in
Massachusetts—first via two telephone calls in 2024 and later by mailing
notice of a hearing on November 5, 2025—the actions that Freeman claims
violated his rights all occurred in Massachusetts. Id. ¶¶ 30, 32. This minimal
contact, limited to communicating with Freeman regarding the ongoing
proceedings in Massachusetts, is not “a substantial part of the events . . . giving
rise to [Freeman’s] claim[s].” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Further, each defendant
appears to reside within the District of Massachusetts. See id. ¶¶ 6–12. Venue
is not proper in the Middle District of Florida, but it appears that venue would
be proper in the District of Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) or 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b).
If a plaintiff files a case in the wrong venue, the court “shall dismiss, or
if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in
Case 1:25-cv-13786-LTS Document 9 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 3

3
which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In the interest of
justice, I transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.
Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:
1. The Clerk is directed to TRANSFER this action to the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
2. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE any pending motions or
deadlines and to CLOSE the case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 5, 2025.
Case 1:25-cv-13786-LTS Document 9 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 3