UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VLADIMIR JEANTY, Plaintiff, 21-CV-7788 (ER) -against- TRANSFER ORDER THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. EDGARDO RAMOS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, a resident of Queens County, New York, brings this pro se action under

, alleging that Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights in Brooklyn, New York.Named as Defendants are the City of New York, New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) Officers Park, Cheng, Aquino, and Chen, and two NYPD John/Jane Doe 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). For venue purposes, a “natural person” resides in the district where the person is domiciled.

(c)(1). And an entity that is not a person, “whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’ s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.” § 1391(c)(2). Plaintiff does not provide addresses for any of the defendants, but his allegations suggest that the individual police officer defendants, including the John/Jane Doe defendants, are assigned to the NYPD’s 73rd Precinct in Brooklyn, Kings County, which is in the Eastern District of New York. See28 U.S.C. § 112(c). The other defendant, the City of New York, resides in this judicial district as well as in the Eastern District of New York. See § 112(b), (c). Plaintiff

alleges that on September 19, 2018, January 8, 2021, and June 11, 2021, Defendants falsely arrested him in Brooklyn. As the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Brooklyn, it is clear that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for this action under § 1391(b)(2). Even though venue is proper here under § 1391(b)(1), 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). Under § 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate in this case. The underlying events occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, where most of the defendants appear to reside. In addition, it is likely that relevant documents and witnesses are locatedin Kings County. Kings County

falls within the Eastern District of New York. See

(c). Venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. See

(b). Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that it is in the interest of justice to transfer this action tothe United States District Court for theEastern 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.A summons shall not issue from this Court. This order closes this case. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. 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: September 20, 2021 ets Y New York, New York FE ye —_—s EDGARDORAMOS/ United States District Judge