UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CARL EUSTADE, Plaintiff, 22-CV-10890 (LTS) -against- TRANSFER ORDER JOSEPH EUSTADE; MARTHA LOUISSAINT; THE EUSTADE FAMILY, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Carl Eustade brings this pro se action under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, setting forth allegations and claims apparently arising from events occurring at Brookdale Hospital in Brooklyn, New York. Named as Defendants are Joseph Eustade, the Eustade family, Martha Louissaint, and the Louissaint family. Plaintiff provides Brooklyn addresses for himself and Joseph Eustade, but does not provide addresses for the “Eustade family,” the “Louissaint family,” or Martha Louissaint. By order dated January 27, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees. 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 Defendants violated his First Amendment rights, in connection with events occurring at Brookdale Hospital. According to Plaintiff, he was “drugged” and misdiagnosed at Brookdale Hospital, and “got molested and still face[d] prison time and also in the trains . . . every day being framed with voodoo.” (ECF 2 ¶ I.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants Eustade and Louissaint sexually assaulted and tortured him, and sent people “through the internet” to harass and frame him. (Id. ¶ III.) Plaintiff pleads the residence of only Joseph Eustade, but he asserts that the alleged events giving rise to his claims occurred at Brookdale Hospital, which is located in Kings County, which falls within the Eastern District of New York. See

. Because it is unknown where the other Defendants reside, it is unclear whether venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(1) this District. Even if the Court did

assume that Defendants reside in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at Brookdale Hospital, venue would also be 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 at Brookdale Hospital in Brooklyn, New York, where Plaintiff and Defendant Eustade reside, and it is reasonable to expect that all relevant documents and witnesses also would be located in Brooklyn. 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. 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: January 31, 2023 New York, New York

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