UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TONIA SCOTT, Petitioner, 23-CV-10902 (DEH) v. TRANSFER ORDER COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent. DALE E. HO, United States District Judge: Petitioner, currently incarcerated at S.C.I. Muncy in Muncy, Pennsylvania, paid the $5.00 fee to bring this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

, challenging the constitutionality of her 2023 conviction in the Common Court of Pleas of Pike County, in Milford, Pennsylvania. Because Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in Pike County, which is located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, this action is transferred under

(d) and Local Civil Rule 83.3 to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See, e.g., Marcy v. Warden, SCI Graterford, No. 17-CV-0049 (JPH),

, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2017) (transferring a Section 2254 petition challenging the petitioner’s underlying conviction to the district of conviction).1 The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. This order closes this case. 1 Petitioner has previously filed multiple actions in this court that were transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See Scott v. Lowe, No. 1:22-CV-7697, 3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2022) (transferring Petitioner’s pre-conviction petition under

to the Middle District of Pennsylvania); Scott v. Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 20-CV-3645, 2 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2020) (transferring Section 2254 petition to the Middle District of Pennsylvania); Scott v. Pine Ridge Cmty. Assoc., No. 1:17-CV-1682, 4 (S.D.N.Y. April 6, 2017) (transferring diversity action to the Middle District of Pennsylvania); Scott v. Saw Creek Estate Cmty. Assoc., No. 1:17-CV-1685, 4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2017) (same). Petitioner is also barred under

from filing any new civil action in this court without first obtaining from the court leave to file. See Scott v. New York State Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, No. 1:17-CV-3517, 6 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2017). Because Petitioner has not at this time made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue under

. 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: January 2, 2024 Te BA New York, New York DALE E. HO United States District Judge