Jones v. Riker's Island GRVC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
GESNER JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. 1:25-cv-00301-DHU-JFR
RIKER’S ISLAND GRVC, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Gesner Jones’ pro se Prisoner Civil Rights
Complaint (Doc. 1, as amended by Doc. 2) (collectively “Complaint”). Plaintiff is incarcerated at
Riker’s Island, George R. Vierno Center, in East Elmhurst, New York, and brings civil rights
claims regarding prisoner conditions at Riker’s Island. See Docs. 1 and 2. Plaintiff names the
Riker’s Island facility and workers as Defendants. See Doc. 2 at 2. However, Plaintiff mailed his
pleadings to this Court (i.e., the District of New Mexico). See Doc. 1 at 14; Doc. 2 at 48.
Defendants have not yet been served, as the case is still in the screening phase. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A (requiring sua sponte screening of all prisoner complaints against government officials).
Before examining the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court will evaluate whether the
District of New Mexico is the proper venue for this proceeding. See Johnson v. Christopher, 233
Fed. App’x 852, 854 (10th Cir. 2007) (analyzing improper venue and noting “the district court has
discretion” to evaluate the matter on screening). Section 1391 of Title 28 permits a civil action to
be brought in:
Case 1:25-cv-00301-DHU-JFR Document 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 4

2
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides …;
(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 … personal jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Subsection (1) is not met. The parties all reside in New York, and it is not clear this Court
has personal jurisdiction over any Defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2) (for venue purposes, an
entity resides in any district “in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s
personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question”). As to subsection (2), courts must
examine “the nature of the plaintiff’s claims and the acts or omissions underlying those claims”
and determine whether “substantial events material to those claims occurred” in this district.
Emps. Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d 1153, 1166 (10th Cir. 2010). Accepting the
allegations as true, none of the alleged wrongdoing occurred in New Mexico. The claims stem
from events in a New York prison. Subsection (3) does not apply. It appears Plaintiff can file an
action in a New York Federal Court.
Where, as here, venue is improper, the Court may transfer the civil action to any other
district “where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The following discretionary
factors must weigh in favor of the transfer:
the plaintiff’s choice of forum; the accessibility of witnesses and other sources of proof,
including the availability of compulsory process to insure attendance of witnesses; the cost
of making the necessary proof; questions as to the enforceability of a judgment if one is
obtained; relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial; difficulties that may arise from
congested dockets; the possibility of the existence of questions arising in the area of
conflict of laws; the advantage of having a local court determine questions of local law;
Case 1:25-cv-00301-DHU-JFR Document 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 4

3
and[ ] all other considerations of a practical nature that make a trial easy, expeditious and
economical.
Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d 1153, 1167 (10th Cir. 2010). The
transfer must also be in the interest of justice; otherwise the matter should be dismissed without
prejudice. Courts consider: “whether the claims would be time barred if filed anew in the proper
forum, whether the claims alleged are likely to have merit, and whether the claims were filed in
good faith….” In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008); see also Faulkenburg v. Weir,
350 Fed. App’x 208, 210 (10th Cir. 2009) (applying the Cline factors to a venue transfer).
On balance, the above factors favor a transfer to the proper forum. The Riker’s Island
facility is located in Queens County, New York, which is within the jurisdiction of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c) (“The Eastern
District [includes] … Queens [County].” The case should have been filed in that Court, and based
on the allegations, Plaintiff may have intended to file in that court. Most evidence would come
from New York witnesses or jail/court records, and all Defendants appear to be located there. See
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), (c). The alleged wrongdoing appears to have occurred more than five years
ago (see, e.g., Doc. 1 at 2); there is a chance some claims may be time-barred if filed anew. The
Court also finds no prejudice to the Defendants, as they have not yet been served or obtained
counsel in New Mexico. A venue transfer is therefore proper; convenient; and in the interest of
justice. The Court will transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.
Case 1:25-cv-00301-DHU-JFR Document 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall TRANSFER the
Complaint (Doc. 1) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York;
TERMINATE all pending motions; and CLOSE the pending case in this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___………………………………………….
HONORABLE DAVID HERRERA URIAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00301-DHU-JFR Document 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 4