Corielus v. Prasad et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 139l(b), 1404(a). No summons shall issue from this Court. The Cou rt notes that Corielus failed to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (" IFP") or a Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") authorization form. The provision of Rule 83. l of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Ne w York, which requires a seven day delay, is waived. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Orderto plaintiff Liventon Corielus, pro se, and note the mailing on the docket. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 3/8/2017. (Taronji, Robert)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------------)(
LIVENTON CORIELUS,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
16-CV-7 155 (RRM) (SMG)

P laintiff,
-againstDR. PRASAD; ASSISTANT DR. BEN OAKES;
SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL SHEAH AN; and
SERGEANT J. A YER,
Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------------)(
ROSL YNN R . MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Liventon Cori elus, currentl y incarcerated at Southport Correctional Faci lity
(" Southport"), fil ed the instant prose complaint on December 27, 2016 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, and alleges that the staff at Southport denied him medi cal treatment. Although Corielus's
complaint is far from a model of clarity, he appears to allege that the staff at Southport
discontinued his medication for diabetes. (See Compl. (Doc No. 1) at 5- 6.) 1 Thereafter, he was
transferred , and the subsequent correctional faci lities refused to give him the necessary
medicati on on the grounds that Southport had discontinued that medication. (See id. at 9-10.)
Cori elus seeks mo netary damages of $90,000. (See id at 5- 6.) For the following reasons, the
Court transfers the instant action to the United States District Court for the Western District of
New York.

DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 139 1, a civi l ri ghts action may be brought in the fo llowing districts:
( 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 o r omissions giving rise to the claim occurred , or a
substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated; o r (3) if
1

All citations to pages of the complaint refer to the Electronic Case Fi ling System ("ECF") pagination.

there is no district in w hich a n action may otherwise be brought as provided in
this section, a ny judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's
personal jurisdiction w ith respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 139 1(b). A district court may tran sfer any civil action to another district "for the
convenience of parties and w itnesses, in the interest of justice . .. ." 28 U.S.C. § l 404(a). See

NY Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N Am., Inc. , 599 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir. 2010).
In determining w hether tra nsfer is appropriate, courts consider the following factors:
(1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the convenience of witnesses; (3) the
location of relevant documents and relative ease of access to sources o f proof; ( 4)
the convenience of parties; (5) the locus of operative facts; (6) the availability of
process to compel the attendance of the unwilling witnesses; and (7) the relative
means of the parties.

NY. Marine, 599 F.3d at 11 2; see also Flores v. United States, l 42 F. Supp. 3d 279, 286- 87
(E.D .N. Y. 2015); Keitt v. NY. City, 882 F . Supp. 2d 412, 459- 60 (S.D.N.Y. 20 11). A plaintiffs
choice of forum is accorded less deference where plaintiff does not reside in the chosen fo ru m
and the operative events did not occur there. See lragorri v. Un ited Tech. Corp., 274 F .3d 65, 72
(2d C ir. 200 1). Here, the operative events are centered wholl y on events taking place at
Southport CotTectional Facility, located in C hemung County, in the Western District of New
York. (See Comp!. at 5- 6.) According ly, transfer of this action to the Western District of New
York is appropri ate. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transfer this action to the United States D istrict
Court for the Western Di strict ofNew York. See 28 U .S. C. §§ 139l(b), 1404(a). No summons
shall issue fro m this Court. The Cou1t notes that Corielus fa iled to file an application to proceed

informa pauperis (" IFP") or a Pri son Litigati on R eform Act ("PLRA") authorization form. The

2

provision of Rule 83. l of the Local Rules of the Eastern Di strict of New York, which requires a
seven day delay, is waived.
The Clerk of Cou11 is respectfully directed to mail a copy of thi s Memorandum and Order
to plaintiff Liventon Corielus, prose, and note the mailing on the docket.

SO ORDERED.

s/Roslynn R. Mauskopf
ROSL YNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge
Dated: Brook lyn, New York
March 8, 20 17

3