Dingle v. United States Department of Education et al, No. 1:2019cv11533 - Document 6 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for an order to show cause is denied. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff is to show cause in writing no later than January 3, 2020, why this case should not be transfer red to the Eastern District of New York. If Plaintiff files a response to this Order, Defendants may file a response to Plaintiff no later than the later of January 17, 2020, or one week after entry of a notice of appearance. If Plaintiff does not re spond to this Order by January 3, 2020, the Court will transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York without further notice. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good fait h, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). Although Pl aintiff has consented to receive electronic service, see ECF No. 4, the Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff out of an abundance of caution. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/18/2019) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Download PDF

Dingle v. United States Department of Education et al Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROBERT DINGLE JR., Plaintiff, 19-CV-11533 (JMF) -vUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and COAST PROFESSIONALS INC., MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants. JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a proposed Order to Show Cause why preliminary injunctive relief should not be granted. See ECF No. 3. The Court declines to sign the proposed Order in the absence of any showing that Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm and that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his case. See UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. W.V. Univ. Hosps., Inc., 660 F. 3d 643, 648 (2d Cir. 2011). If Plaintiff believes that he is entitled to relief, he may file an appropriate motion, supported by appropriate evidence, seeking such relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an order to show cause is denied. Under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1404(a), a district court has discretion to transfer venue to any other district where a case might have been brought “for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see, e.g., New York Marine and General Ins. Co. v. Lafarge North America, Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing the factors to be considered in determining whether to transfer venue). Because Plaintiff lives in Cambria Heights, most if not all of the events giving rise to this lawsuit would seem to have occurred in the Eastern District of New York. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to exercise its discretion under Section 1404(a) by transferring this case to the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § § 1391(b) (providing that a civil action may be brought in, among other districts, a 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). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff is to show cause in writing no later than January 3, 2020, why this case should not be transferred to the Eastern District of New York. If Plaintiff files a response to this Order, Defendants may file a response to Plaintiff no later than the later of January 17, 2020, or one week after entry of a notice of appearance. If Plaintiff does not respond to this Order by January 3, 2020, the Court will transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York without further notice. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an Dockets.Justia.com appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). Although Plaintiff has consented to receive electronic service, see ECF No. 4, the Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff out of an abundance of caution. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 18, 2019 New York, New York JESSE M. FURMAN United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.