UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRIAN MARKUSON, Plaintiff, -against- 25-CV-2714 (LTS) CITY OF NEW YORK; NYPD OFFICERS TRANSFER ORDER JOHN DOE #1-#15; FDNY PERSONNEL JOHN ROE#1-#50; OTHER UNKNOWN INDIVIDUALS, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who resides in Brooklyn, New York, brings this pro se action under

, alleging that Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights in Brooklyn, New York. Named as Defendants are the City of New York; 50 John Doe New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) officers, 50 John Roe Fire Department of New York (“FDNY”) officers, and “other unknown individuals.” 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 Defendants violated his rights at his residence in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York, which is located in the Eastern District of New York. See

(c). Because Defendant City of New York is located in both this District1 and the Eastern District of

New York, venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(1) in both districts. Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Brooklyn, 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).

1 This judicial District, the Southern District of New York, is comprised of the following New York State counties: (1) New York (New York City Borough of Manhattan); (2) Bronx (New York City Borough of the Bronx); (3) Westchester; (4) Dutchess; (5) Rockland; (6) Orange; (7) Putnam; and (8) Sullivan. See

(b). Under Section 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate in this case. The underlying events occurred in Brooklyn, New York, where Plaintiff is resides and where the individual defendants are likely employed, and it is reasonable to expect that the relevant documents and witnesses also would be 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. 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 IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: April 9, 2025 New York, New York

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