Opinion
24-CV-2604 (LTS)
04-30-2024
THERESA ANN HANKERSON, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH HOSPITAL BROOKLYN NEW YORK; COMMISSIONER POST OFFICE; POST OFFICE COMMISSIONER; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH COMMISSIONER; DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Defendants.
TRANSFER ORDER
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, who resides in Brooklyn, New York, invokes the court's federal question jurisdiction, alleging that Defendants violated her rights in Brooklyn, New York. For the following reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
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).
Although much of the complaint is unclear, Plaintiff alleges that her rights were violated at “South Hospital Brooklyn,” which the Court understands to be NYC Health + Hospitals/South Brooklyn Health, located in Brooklyn, Kings County New York, which falls within the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c). She alleges no facts suggesting any of the events giving rise to her claims occurred in this District.While the specific names and exact addresses of the defendants are unclear, Plaintiff alleges that most, but possibly not all, defendants are located in Brooklyn. (See ECF 1, at 4-5.)
This judicial district, the Southern District of New York, is comprised of the following New York State counties: (1) New York (New York City Borough of Manhattan); (2) Bronx (New York City Borough of the Bronx); (3) Westchester; (4) Dutchess; (5) Rockland; (6) Orange; (7) Putnam; and (8) Sullivan. 28 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Even if the Court did assume that at least one defendant resides in this District and that venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(1) both here and in the Eastern District of New York, because the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in Brooklyn, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern 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 in Brooklyn, where Plaintiff resides and where Defendant South Brooklyn Health is located, and it is reasonable to expect that relevant documents and witnesses also would be located in Brooklyn. Moreover, because Plaintiff does not reside in this District and she does not allege that the operative events occurred here, her choice of forum is accorded less deference. See Iragorri, 274 F.3d at 72. The Eastern 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 Eastern 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 Eastern 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 in this court.
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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.