Hill v. The People of the State of New York

Filing 4

TRANSFER ORDER: This case is hereby transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. No summons shall issue from this Court. That provision of Rule 83.1 of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of New York, which provides for a seven-day delay in the transfer of a case, is waived. So Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 2/17/2017. (c/m) (Lee, Tiffeny)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X

SCOTT HILL,
Plaintiff,
TRANSFER ORDER

-against17-CV-458(ENV)
(JO)
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Defendant.

VITALIANO,D.J.

Pro se plaintiff Scott Hill brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that
several unidentified court officers assaulted him during a court appearance in a New York County

state court on January 18,2016. (Compl. at 6-7, ECF No. 1). For the reasons that follow, this
action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York.

Pursuant to the venue provision governing civil actions filed in federal district courts, 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 a substantial part
of property that is the subject ofthe action is situated; or

(3)

if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be
brought as provided in this section, anyjudicial district in which
any defendant is subject to the court's personaljurisdiction with
respect to such action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When a case is filed in the wrong district, a district court "shall dismiss, or if it
be in the interest ofjustice, transfer such case to any district... in which it could have been brought."
Id. § 1406(a).

Because Hill's complaint does not allege any facts suggesting Eastern District residences for
the unidentified officers who allegedly assaulted him, venue here cannot be justified under §

1391(b)(1). Moreover, the Eastem District is not a proper venue under § 1391(b)(2) because the

alleged assault took place, it is alleged, solely in New York County. See id. § 112(c). Section
1391(b)(3) does not come into play here because the Southern District would be a proper venue for
this action under § 1391(b)(2). See id. § 112(b).

Rather than dismiss this case improperly initiated in this district, however,the Court will
exercise its discretion, in the interest ofjustice, to transfer the case across the East River to its

proper venue in the Southern District. See id. §§ 112(b), 1391(b)(2), 1406(a). In so doing,the
Court offers no opinion on the merits ofthe complaint. Any ruling on plaintiffs application to

proceed informa pauperis,(Pl.'s Mot., ECF No. 2), is reserved for the transferee court.
Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, this case is hereby transferred to the United States District
Court for the Southern District ofNew York. No summons shall issue from this Court. That

provision of Rule 83.1 ofthe Local Rules ofthe Eastem District ofNew York, which provides for a
seven-day delay in the transfer of a case, is waived.
The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to transfer this case, to mail a copy ofthis Transfer

Order to plaintiff and,following transfer, to close this docket for administrative purposes.
So Ordered.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 17,2017

s/Eric N. Vitaliano
ERIC N. VITALIANO

United States District Judge