UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CLIFTON CLINTON WILLIAMS, IV, Plaintiff, 24-CV-5855 (LTS) -against- TRANSFER ORDER BRC OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently detained at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island, brings this action pro se. Plaintiff alleges that he was forced to leave a shelter in Brooklyn, New York, operated by BRC, based on false accusations that he had stolen property at an affiliated shelter. For the following reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. DISCUSSION Under the general venue statute, 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.

(b). 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). Venue of Plaintiff’s claims does not appear to be proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(2) based on the location where the events giving rise to the claims occurred. Plaintiff alleges that staff at the BRC shelter at 146 Clay Street in Brooklyn, New York, “forced [him] to leave” without notice, based on accusations that he had stolen a laptop from an affiliated

homeless shelter. (ECF 1 at 4.) Because Plaintiff alleges that his claims arose outside this district, venue is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(2) based on the where the events occurred. Venue may be proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(1), based on the residence of the defendants, although Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to make this determination. Brooklyn is in the Eastern District of New York.

(c). Venue of Plaintiff’s claims thus is proper, under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York, where the events giving rise to the claims took place. Even if venue is proper in the district where a case is filed, a court may transfer the case “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice” to any other district where it might have been brought.

(a). 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 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 Brooklyn, and 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 the case in the Southern District of New York. 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 16, 2025 New York, New York

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