Cohn v. Doe, 1-10 et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SAMUEL COHN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE, 1-10, OFFICE OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, et
al.,
Defendants.
25-CV-342-LJV
ORDER
The pro se plaintiff, Samuel Cohn, is a prisoner confined at the Suffolk County
Correctional Facility. See Docket Item 1 at 2. He brings this action—raising several
claims arising from an incident at the Highland Residential Center in Highland, New
York—under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Docket Item 1 at 3-5; see also Juvenile Justice
and Opportunities for Youth: Regional Facilities, Off. of Child. and Fam. Servs.,
https://ocfs.ny.gov/programs/rehab/facilities/ (last visited December 9, 2025). After this
Court twice administratively terminated Cohn’s case, see Docket Items 3 and 6, he paid
the filing and administrative fees and his case was reopened. For the reasons set forth
below, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York.
Case 1:25-cv-01723-MAD-DJS Document 8 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 4

2
DISCUSSION
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). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), a “natural person” resides in the
district where the person is domiciled, and an “entity with the capacity to sue and be
sued” resides in any judicial district where it is subject to “personal jurisdiction with
respect to the civil action in question.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1), (2).
When a case is filed in a district in which venue is improper, the court shall
dismiss the case “or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any
district . . . in which it could have been brought.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). “A district
court may transfer a case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) sua sponte.” Grefer v.
Chirco, 2023 WL 1798728, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2023) (italics omitted). The purpose
of section 1406(a)’s transfer provision is to “remov[e] whatever obstacles may impede
an expeditious and orderly adjudication of cases and controversies on their merits.”
Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 466-67 (1962).
Here, the events underlying Cohn’s complaint occurred at the Highland facility in
Highland, New York. See Docket Item 1 at 3-5; see also Juvenile Justice and
Opportunities for Youth: Regional Facilities, Off. of Child. and Fam. Servs.,
https://ocfs.ny.gov/programs/rehab/facilities/ (last visited December 9, 2025). 	Highland,
Case 1:25-cv-01723-MAD-DJS Document 8 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 4

3
New York, is located in Ulster County and thus within the geographical confines of the
Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Moreover, although Cohn
names a number of John Does as defendants, see Docket Item 1 at 2-3, he does not
allege that any of those defendants reside within this District, see
28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1).1 Thus, there is no apparent basis for venue in this District.
CONCLUSION
In light of the above, it is in the interest of justice to transfer Cohn’s case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. §
1406(a). This Court does not rule on the sufficiency of the complaint; instead, the Court
leaves that issue to the Northern District of New York.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transfer this case to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
1 Cohn does not specify whether he is suing the defendants, who he alleges work
for the Office of Children and Family Services, in their individual or official capacities.
See Docket Item 1 at 2-3. But to the extent he does intend to sue the defendants in
their official capacities, “[w]here . . . public officials are sued in their official capacities,
residence for venue purposes is where they perform their official duties.” Andrew H. by
Irene H. v. Ambach, 579 F. Supp. 85, 88 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Because Cohn’s complaint does not allege that the defendants perform their
official duties within this District, the fact that he may intend to sue the defendants in
their official capacities does not change the Court’s analysis.
Case 1:25-cv-01723-MAD-DJS Document 8 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 4

4
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	December 9, 2025
Buffalo, New York
/s/ Lawrence J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01723-MAD-DJS Document 8 Filed 12/09/25 Page 4 of 4