Coyoy v. United States

• Decision Date: 18 March 2021
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 20-2501 (KM) (ESK)
• Citation: 526 F.Supp.3d 30
• Parties: Yazmin Juarez COYOY, on her own behalf and as surviving parent of Mariee Camyl Newberry Juarez, Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

526 F.Supp.3d 30

Yazmin Juarez COYOY, on her own behalf and as surviving parent of Mariee Camyl Newberry Juarez, Plaintiffs,

v.The UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

Civ. No. 20-2501 (KM) (ESK)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

Signed March 18, 2021

Paul Joseph Fishman, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Newark, NJ, for Plaintiffs.

Allan B.K. Urgent, Office of the US Attorney, Brooks E. Doyne, District of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, Elizabeth Pascal, U.S. Department of Justice Office of the U.S. Attorney, Peter Gregory Vizcarrondo, United States Attorney's Office, Camden, NJ, for Defendant.

KEVIN MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.:

Now before the Court is the motion of the United States to transfer venue of this wrongful death action to the Western District of Texas. For the reasons stated herein, the motion will be denied.

Many immigration law issues revolve around the presence of a human being, which, in everyday life, is not a problematic concept. The United States does not dispute that the plaintiff, Yazmin Juarez Coyoy, is a natural person who lives in New Jersey. But the government contends that she is not a resident here, or indeed anywhere; for venue purposes, she is a kind of Flying Dutchman. Legal fictions, we are taught, are "solemn things,"¹ so it will be necessary to explore further.

I do not make light of this tragic case. The issue at the moment, however, is just venue; whether this action, which will certainly be litigated somewhere, will be prosecuted in this location or that. Nothing about that issue would require the government to compromise its position on the merits, adjust the plaintiff's immigration status, or concede the availability of relief. Issues of statutory interpretation aside, what is at stake is mainly the government's convenience.

Yazmin Juarez Coyoy is a migrant from Guatemala. She was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") in Texas shortly after she crossed the border from Mexico, accompanied by her 19-month-old daughter, Mariee Camyl Newberry Juarez. While the two were in ICE custody, Mariee fell ill. According to the complaint, ICE medical staff provided inadequate treatment, which allowed Mariee's illness to progress to a critical state. They then, without proper medical clearance, authorized her transfer to New Jersey by air. Shortly after Marie landed in New Jersey, she was checked into an emergency room and was hospitalized. She died six weeks later, having attained the age of 21 months. Ms. Juarez has filed a complaint against the United States, on behalf of herself and her deceased daughter, alleging wrongful death and medical negligence under Texas state law.²

First, the United States argues first that venue is improper under the relevant statute. Ms. Juarez, it says, cannot be deemed to "reside" in New Jersey, or anywhere in the United States, because she does not possess the status of a permanent resident alien. That issue of statutory interpretation must, of course, be resolved. But it does not end there.

Second, the United States argues that even if venue is permissible here, the Court should exercise its discretion to transfer venue to the Western District of Texas, because it would be more convenient for the government to litigate there. The United States is obviously present and well able to defend itself in any district. On the other hand, the transfer sought by the government would subject an indigent plaintiff who is grieving for her dead child to maximum inconvenience.

All that said, the Court must apply the governing venue statute, and would transfer venue if that statute dictated that venue here is improper. I do not, however, believe that the statute requires such a result. Nor does the United States persuade the Court that, as a discretionary matter, the plaintiff's choice of forum should be disturbed. I therefore DENY the United States's motion to transfer.

I. BACKGROUND

Ms. Juarez, originally from Guatemala, came to the United States with her daughter, Mariee, seeking refugee status. (Compl. ¶ 12.) Ms. Juarez and Mariee crossed the United States-Mexico border into Texas on approximately March 1, 2018. (Id. ) Soon thereafter, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol apprehended the pair and transported them to an ICE holding facility in McAllen, Texas. (Id. ¶ 13.) They were then transferred into ICE custody at that facility, where they were housed with five other mothers and several sick children. (Id. ¶¶ 13–15, 17.)

While housed at the Texas Facility, Mariee developed upper respiratory symptoms, including congestion and a productive cough. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 19.) ICE medical staff turned her away on multiple occasions. (Id. ) Eventually, on March 11, 2018, a physician assistant examined Mariee, diagnosed her with an acute upper respiratory infection, and prescribed Tylenol for comfort and honey packs for her cough. (Id. ¶ 20.) That physician assistant directed a follow-up in six months. (Id. ) The next day, Mariee was running a fever of 104.2 degrees and refusing food, as well as suffering from cough, congestion, diarrhea, and vomiting. She was seen by another physician assistant, who prescribed an antibiotic, fever reducers, and oral hydration. (Id. ¶ 21.) Three days later, another physician assistant diagnosed an upper respiratory infection, directed continued administration of Tylenol and Pedialite, and scheduled a follow up appointment for a week later. (Id. ¶ 24.) On March 21, 2018, a physician diagnosed Mariee with acute viral bronchiolitis, and prescribed Pedialite, ibuprofen, Zyrtec, and Vicks VapoRub. (Id. ¶ 25.) Finally, on March 23, 2018, a nurse examined Mariee's lungs and noted that a referral would be made for her to see a medical provider. (Id. ¶ 29.)

On March 25, 2018, ICE staff cleared Mariee and Ms. Juarez for transfer out of family detention to New Jersey, despite Mariee's not having been medically examined that day. (Id. ¶¶ 30–32.) The two boarded a plane to New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 35.) Soon after landing, Ms. Juarez took Mariee to a pediatrician, and then took her to an emergency room. (Id. ¶ 35, 37.) Mariee tested positive for adenovirus and parainfluenza. (Id. ¶ 37.) After six weeks of treatment at two different hospitals, Mariee died on May 10, 2018. (Id. ¶ 37–39.) The medical examiner concluded that the cause of death was a collapsed lung, inflammation of the lungs, and bronchiectasis. (Id. ¶ 39.)

Ms. Juarez brought this suit seeking compensation for Mariee's death. (Compl.) She brings six claims under Texas state law against the United States. Her claims are for negligence, negligence per se, and medical negligence under the Texas Survival Statute and the Texas Wrongful Death Act. (Compl. at 12–18.)

Before bringing this suit, Ms. Juarez brought two other lawsuits in other federal district courts. The first, filed on February 28, 2019, was entitled Yazmin Juarez Coyoy v. City of Eloy , Civ. No. 19-01391 (D. Ariz. 2019). In that suit, she sought to hold the City of Eloy, Arizona, responsible for Mariee's death.³ The dismissal of that case, DE 22, Civ. No. 19-01391 (Nov. 19, 2019), is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No. 19-17539 (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2019). The second case, filed on July 31, 2019, is entitled Yazmin Juarez Coyoy v. CoreCivic, Inc. , Civ. No. 19-00916 (W.D. Tex. 2019). There, she brings claims under Texas law against CoreCivic, the private contractor which operated the ICE facility where Mariee became ill. That case initially included medical negligence claims, which were dismissed; the sole issue remaining is a claim that CoreCivic negligently created unsafe, unsanitary conditions for Mariee. DE 19, Civ. No. 19-00916 (Oct. 9, 2019).

This action, then, contains all the remaining claims of negligent medical care. As required by the Federal Tort Claims Act, it is brought against the United States.

II. DISCUSSION

a. Whether Venue is Proper

The parties first dispute whether, as a matter of statutory law, venue is proper in the District of New Jersey. I conclude that it is.

Because plaintiff brings her claims pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1), venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b). That statute provides that "[a]ny civil action on a tort claim against the United States under subsection (b) of [ 28 U.S.C. § 1346 ] may be prosecuted only in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or wherein the act or omission complained of occurred."

Venue is thus proper in the District of New Jersey only if plaintiff "resides" here.⁴ Residency "[f]or all venue purposes" is governed by a definitional section:

[A] natural person, including an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, shall be deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is domiciled.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1).⁵

Ms. Juarez asserts, straightforwardly enough, that venue is proper in this district because she is a natural person who resides in the District of New Jersey. The government does not dispute factually that she lives here and intends to remain for an indefinite period. The United States asserts, however, that Ms. Juarez, as an immigrant not "lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States," cannot be deemed to "reside" in the District of New Jersey, or indeed anywhere else in the United States. If that is so, venue can only be based on the location of the alleged medical malpractice, i.e., the Western District of Texas.

i. Interpretation of § 1391(c)(1)

I conclude that Ms. Juarez is a resident of the District of New Jersey, and that venue is therefore proper here.

Section 1391(c)(1) does not specifically address the residential status of an alien not lawfully admitted to the United States. To that extent it is ambiguous,⁶ and I therefore employ the usual tools of statutory interpretation. To summarize, I find that Congress did not intend to extend "resident" status to all individuals who are currently present in a district, even if they subjectively...