Opinion
22-CV-5056 (LTS)
06-16-2022
WILSON PENA LOJO, Plaintiff, v. LOPEZ, Lieutenant of Essex County Correctional Facility, et al. Defendants.
TRANSFER ORDER
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York, brings this civil rights action pro se. He alleges that defendants violated his rights at Essex County Correctional Facility, in Newark, New Jersey. For the following reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
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 on May 17, 2019, Defendants violated his rights at Essex County Correctional Facility, in Newark, New Jersey. He does not plead facts about the residence of any of the defendants, who are correction officers and other employees of Essex County Correctional Facility; venue is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(1) unless all of the defendants reside in New York.
Plaintiff asserts that the alleged events giving rise to his claims occurred at Essex County Correctional Facility, in Newark, New Jersey. Newark is located in Essex County, in the District of New Jersey. See 28 U.S.C. § 110. Venue therefore does lie in the District of New Jersey under Section 1391(b)(2).
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 in Newark, New Jersey, and it is reasonable to expect that all relevant documents and witnesses also would be there. There is no indication that Plaintiff resides in the chosen forum, and the operative events did not occur in this district. Accordingly, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the District New Jersey. 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 District of New Jersey. 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.