UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DANIEL JOSE GARCIA, Plaintiff, 23-CV-9936 (LTS) -against- TRANSFER ORDER OFFICER SINGER, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who currently is detained on Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under

, alleging that Defendant Officer Singer, a New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) officer, assaulted him in Queens County, New York. Named as Defendant is Officer Singer, who Plaintiff states is employed with the NYPD’s 115th Precinct, in Queens, New York. 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. For venue purposes, 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 Officer Singer violated his rights in Queens, New York. He does not plead the residence of Officer Singer, but he asserts that the alleged events giving rise to his claims occurred in Queens County, which falls within the Eastern District of New York. See

. Because it is unknown where Defendant resides, it is unclear whether venue is

proper under Section 1391(b)(1) in either this District or the Eastern District of New York. Even if the Court did assume that Officer Singer resides in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Queens County, 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 in Queens County, where it is reasonable to expect that all relevant documents and witnesses would be located. Moreover, although it is not clear whether venue is proper in this District under Section 1391(b)(1), it is clear that venue is proper in the Eastern District of

New York under Section 1391(b)(2). The Eastern District of New York therefore 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. 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: December 13, 2023 New York, New York

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