Opinion
23-CV-9865 (LTS)
11-08-2023
KEN SMITH, Plaintiff, v. KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, Governor of New York; DANIEL F. MARTUSCELLO III, Commissioner DOCCS; MOLLY WASOW PARK, Commissioner DSS/DHS, Defendants.
TRANSFER ORDER
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Ken Smith, who is currently incarcerated at Adirondack Correctional Facility (“Adirondack”), located in Saranac Lake, Essex County, New York, brings this pro se action, invoking the court's federal question jurisdiction. He alleges that Defendants violated his rights in July 2023, during a pre-parole interview at Adirondack. Named as Defendants are Governor Kathy Hochul, DOCCS Commissioner Daniel Martuscello III, and DDD/DHS Commissioner Molly Wasow Park.For the following reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
Plaintiff provides only work addresses for Defendants, which includes New York, New York addresses for Defendants Hochul and Park, and an Albany, New York address for Defendant Martuscello.
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 (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, 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).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights at Adirondack. He does not plead the residence of any of the defendants, but he asserts that the alleged events giving rise to his claims occurred at Adirondack, which is located in Essex County, which falls within the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Because it is unknown where Defendants reside, it is unclear whether venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(1) in either this District or the Northern District of New York. Even if the Court did assume that Defendants reside in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred at Adirondack, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Northern District of New York.
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 Adirondack, where Plaintiff is incarcerated and where the pre-parole interview took place, and it is reasonable to expect that all relevant documents and witnesses also would be at Adirondack. The Northern District of New York 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 this case.
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 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).
SO ORDERED.