Opinion
22-CV-4936 (LTS)
06-13-2022
DIQUAN BOOKER, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE, 8-4 SHIFT CORRECTIONAL OFFICER; JOHN DOE, 8-4 SHIFT CORRECTIONAL OFFICER., Defendants.
TRANSFER ORDER
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Washington Correctional Facility in Comstock, New York, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that John Doe Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights at Washington Correctional Facility. For the following reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may be brought in
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.
For venue purposes, a “natural person” resides in the district where the person is domiciled. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights at Washington Correctional Facility. He does not plead facts about the residence of any of the defendants, and it is therefore unclear whether venue is proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(1).
Plaintiff asserts that the alleged events giving rise to his claims occurred at Washington Correctional Facility, which is located in Washington County in the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Venue therefore is proper in the Northern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2).
Plaintiff recently filed another action against John Doe Correction Officers that was also transferred to the Northern District of New York. See Booker v. John Doe, No. 22-CV-4517 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y.).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), even if a case is filed in a jurisdiction where venue is proper, a court may transfer the case to any other district where it might have been brought “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In determining whether transfer is appropriate, courts consider the following ten factors: (1) the convenience of witnesses; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the locus of operative facts; (4) the availability of process to compel the attendance of the unwilling witnesses; (5) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) the forum's familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded to the plaintiff's choice of forum; (9) trial efficiency; and (10) the interest of justice, based on the totality of circumstances. Keitt v. N.Y. City, 882 F.Supp.2d 412, 459-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see also N.Y. Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaFarge No. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (setting forth similar factors). A plaintiff's choice of forum is accorded less deference where the plaintiff does not reside in the chosen forum and the operative events did not occur there. See Iragorri v. United Tech. Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir. 2001).
Under Section 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate in this case. The underlying events occurred at Washington Correctional Facility, where Plaintiff is incarcerated, and it is reasonable to expect that all relevant documents and witnesses also would be there. The Northern District of New York also appears to be a more convenient forum for this action. Accordingly, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106 (2d Cir. 2006) (“District courts have broad discretion in making determinations of convenience under Section 1404(a) and notions of convenience and fairness are considered on a case-by-case basis.”).
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Whether Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed further without prepayment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court. A summons shall not issue from this Court. This order closes the case in the Southern District of New York.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 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 appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.