UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WILNER C. BAZELAIS, Plaintiff, -against- 22-CV-3375 (LTS) THE STATE OF NEW YORK; BROOKLYN SUPERIOR COURT; BROOKLYN SUPREME TRANSFER ORDER COURT; APPELLATE DIVISION SUPREME COURT; SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT; NYPD 83RD PRECINCT, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Wilner C. Bazelais, who is currently detained at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island, brings this action pro se. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights in Brooklyn (Kings County), New York. For the following reasons, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. DISCUSSION Under the general venue provision, a federal 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, “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

(c)(1), (2). Plaintiff sues: (1) the State of New York; (2) the Brooklyn Superior Court; (3) the Brooklyn Supreme Court; (4) the Appellate Division Supreme Court; (5) the Second Judicial Department; and (6) the NYPD 83rd Precinct.1 Plaintiff alleges that the events that are the basis of his claims occurred in Brooklyn, New York, in Kings County, which is located in the Eastern

District of New York. See

(c). Because Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to his claims occurred in Kings County, venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York. See

(b)(2). The City of New York and the New York City Police Department reside in this judicial district as well as in the Eastern District of New York. See

(b), (c). Thus, while this Court may be an appropriate venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1), it is clear that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1) and Section 1391(b)(2). Even though this Court may be an appropriate court to hear these claims, 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 Cento v. Pearl Arts & Craft Supply Inc., No. 03-CV-2424 (LAK),

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2003) (“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

1 The New York City Police Department is an agency of the City of New York, and the 83rd Precinct is located in Brooklyn, New York. transfer cases under Section 1404(a) sua sponte therefore is well established.”); see also Lead Indus. Ass’n. Inc. v. OSHA,

, 79 n.17 (2d Cir. 1979) (noting that the “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 Section 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate in this case. The alleged underlying events occurred in Kings County, in the Eastern District of New York. In addition, it is likely that relevant documents and witnesses are located in that judicial district. 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. See

(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. 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. Cf. Coppedge v. United States,

(1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: April 28, 2022 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge