Hart v. The Capitol et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York under Section 1404(a). The Court makes no determination with regard to plaintiff's in forma paupe ris application and that motion is reserved for the transferee court. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mark this case closed.. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 11/25/2013. (Bollbach, Jean) cm by chambers to pro se by fcm on 11/25/13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------){

KEON K. HART,

LONG ISI:AN9

Qfi!=ICE

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
13-CV-5654(JFB)(ARL)

-againstTHE CAPITOL, et al.,
Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------){
BIANCO, District Judge:

Incarcerated pro se plaintiff, Keon K. Hart ("plaintiff'), presently located at the Mid-State
Correctional Facility in Marcy, New York, brings this in forma pauperis action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 ("Section 1983").
Under the general venue provision:
a civil action may be brought in-- (I) 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 of the action is situated;
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.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Here, though the complaint is difficult to comprehend, it appears that the
events giving rise to plaintiff's claims are alleged to have occurred at Mid-State Correctional
Facility, which is located in Oneida County, New York. Oneida County is within the Northern
District ofNew York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is therefore
proper in the Northern District ofNew York.

Additionally, on September20, 2013, plaintiff commenced an action in the Northern District
ofNew York, Hart v. N.Y. State Office of Mental Health. eta!., 9:13-CV-1171(LEK)(DEP). In
determining whether to transfer to another district where the action might have been brought, courts
should consider: (1) the plaintiff's choice offorum, (2) the convenience ofthe witnesses and parties,
(3) the location of relevant documents and relative ease of access to sources of proof, (4) the locus
of operative facts, (5) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses,
and (6) the relative means of the parties. SeeN Y. & Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaForge No. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d
102, 112 (2d Cir. 2010). Although a plaintiff's choice of forum generally should be disturbed only
if the balance of factors weighs heavily in favor of transfer, that choice is accorded less deference
where plaintiff does not reside in the chosen forum and the operative facts did not occur there. See
Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir. 2001).

In this case, even assuming arguendo that venue is proper in this district under Section
1391(b) (which is not at all clear from the complaint), the Court concludes, based on the totality of
circumstances, that it is in the interest ofjustice to transfer this action under § 1404(a) to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Specifically, there appears to be no
connection whatsoever in this lawsuit to the Eastern District of New York. Instead, plaintiff
presently is incarcerated in the Northern District of New York, and the events giving rise to his
alleged claims appear to have taken place during his confinement in the Northern District of New
York. In particular, based upon documents plaintiff filed with the Court on November 1, 2013, it
appears he is seeking to challenge his removal from the general population and placement in a
mental health treatment program in the jail. These allegations appear to be similar to another lawsuit
plaintiff filed in the Northern District ofNew York alleging that he has been improperly diagnosed
by the jail.

See Complaint, Hart v. N.Y. State Office of Mental Health. et a!., 9:13-CV-

1171 (LEK)(DEP).
2

Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of New York under Section 1404(a). The Court makes no
determination with regard to plaintiff's in forma pauperis application and that motion is reserved
for the transferee court. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mark this case closed.

ianco
es District Judge
Dated:

November 25, 2013
Central Islip, NY

3