UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WILLIAM SCALES, Plaintiff, 22-CV-7292 (LTS) -against- TRANSFER ORDER THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is a resident of the Bronx, brings this action pro se. He invokes the court’s federal question jurisdiction, alleging that Defendant violated his rights in King County, Brooklyn. In the caption of the complaint, Plaintiff names “The Supreme Court of the United States” as the sole defendant. In the complaint, however, Plaintiff lists Defendant’s address as 360 Adams Street in Kings County, New York, which is the address of the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County. Furthermore, Plaintiff states in the complaint that the events giving rise to his claims occurred at “[t]he Supreme Court of New York Kings County.” (ECF 2, at 5.) For these reasons, the Court understands the complaint to be asserting claims against the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County. For the following reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. DISCUSSION Under

(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. Under Section 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

(c)(1), (2).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is located in Kings County, New York. He also alleges that the events giving rise to his claims occurred at the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County. Kings County falls within the Eastern District of New York. If the Court liberally construed Plaintiff’s claims as being asserted against the New York State Unified Court System, venue may arguably be proper under Section 1391(b)(1) in both this District and the Eastern District of New York. Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Kings County, venue is also proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York. Under

(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.”

(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,

(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 the 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 underlying events occurred in Kings County, New York, where Defendant is located, and it is reasonable to

expect that all relevant documents and witnesses also would be in Kings County. 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.

(a); see D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener,

(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.

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: August 30, 2022 New York, New York

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