United States District Court, S.D. New York
Colleen McMahon, Chief United States District Judge.
a resident of Levittown, New York, brings this pro
se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that
Defendants violated his constitutional rights. For the
following reasons, this action is transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
the general venue provision, a civil action may be brought
(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.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Under § 1391(c), 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).
2018, Plaintiff filed three cases in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, against the Nassau County Police
Department (NCPD), the Nassau County Medical Center (NCMC),
and employees of both entities. Plaintiff alleged that
Defendants unlawfully harassed him, arrested him, and
confined him to a psychiatric facility. On February 12, 2019,
the Eastern District consolidated the cases, and the matter
is pending. See Panchitkaew v. Nassau Cnty. Police
Dep't, No. 18-CV-956 (E.D.N.Y.) Although not named
as a defendant, the FBI intervened, and successfully moved to
quash a subpoena. On July 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a third
amended complaint. No. 18-CV-956, Doc. 83 (E.D.N.Y.)
filed his original complaint in this matter on October 21,
2019. He filed an amended complaint on November 27, 2019,
which added new defendants and claims. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants have violated his rights “in countless
occasions, ” and that the government entities he
contacted for assistance failed to help him or investigate
his complaints. (ECF Doc. 4 ¶¶ 45-57.) Plaintiff
alleges that venue is proper in this Court because at least
one defendant resides in this District, but he does not
allege that a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to his claim arose in this district.
venue were proper here, however, the Court may transfer
claims “[f]or the convenience of the parties and
witnesses, in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a). “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.” D.H. Blair & Co. v.
Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106 (2d Cir. 2006). Moreover,
courts may transfer cases on their own initiative. See
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Wilmington Trust FSB, 943 F.Supp.2d
417, 426-427 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Courts have an
independent institutional concern to see to it that the
burdens of litigation that is unrelated to the forum that a
party chooses are not imposed unreasonably on jurors and
judges who have enough to do in determining cases that are
appropriately before them. The power of district courts to
transfer cases under Section 1404(a) sua sponte
therefore is well established.” (quoting Cento v.
Pearl Arts & Craft Supply Inc., No. 03-CV-2424, 2003
WL 1960595, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2003))); see also
Lead Indus. Ass'n. Inc. v. OSHA., 610 F.2d 70, 79
(2d Cir. 1979) (noting that “broad language of 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a) would seem to permit a court to order
transfer sua sponte”).
determining whether transfer is appropriate, courts consider
the following 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 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).
§ 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate in this
case. Most of the underlying events occurred in Nassau
County, where Plaintiff and most of the Defendants reside.
Plaintiff has related, ongoing litigation in the Eastern
District of New York. Venue is therefore proper in the
Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b). Based on the totality of the circumstances, the
Court concludes that it is in the interest of justice to
transfer this action to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York. 28 U.S.C. §
Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my
docket, mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, and note
service on the docket. The Clerk of Court is further 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
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 ...