UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FRANKLIN GARDNER, Plaintiff, 20-CV-2333 (CM) -against- TRANSFER ORDER NEW YORK CITY, et al., Defendants. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under

, alleging that he was injured in a motor vehicle accident while being transported from Rikers Island to New York Supreme Court, Kings County. Named as Defendants are the City of New York, the driver of the vehicle, and other New York City Department of Correction officers. For the following reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. DISCUSSION Under the general venue provision, 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.

(b). Plaintiff names the City of New York as a defendant. Thus, venue is proper in this District under

(b)(1) because the City of New York is located within the Southern District of New York. Even though venue is proper here, the Court may transfer claims “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.”

(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,

(2d Cir. 2006). Moreover, courts may transfer cases on their own initiative. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Wilmington Trust FSB,

(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,

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2003))); see also Lead Indus. Ass’n. Inc. v. OSHA.,

, 79 (2d Cir. 1979) (noting that “broad language of

(a) would seem to permit a court to order transfer sua sponte”). In 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,

(S.D.N.Y. 2011); see also N.Y. Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaFarge No. Am., Inc.,

(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.,

, 72 (2d Cir. 2001). First, because the City of New York is located within the Eastern District of New York as well as this District, venue is proper in that district under § 1391(b)(1). Second, as the underlying events occurred in Brooklyn, which is in Kings County, venue is proper in the Eastern District under § 1391(b)(2). Third, because the accident occurred in Brooklyn, any records associated with the incident would be located in Brooklyn. 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.

(a). CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. 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

(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,

(1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: July 23, 2020 , New York, New York hie. Iu Hk Chief United States District Judge