Russo v. Harahan et al

Filing 7

ORDER - The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under § 1404(a). The Court makes no determination with regard to plaintiffs 8 in forma pauperis applicat ion and that motion is reserved for the transferee court. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff and to mark this case closed. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any app eal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SEE ATTACHED ORDER for details. So Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 6/12/17. (Coleman, Laurie) c/m to pro se pltff.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------){
ANTHONY CRIVELLO RUSSO,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
17-CV-02256 (JFB) (AKT)

-against-

FILED

LINDA HARAHAN, LISA CHUTKA, and
KARIN HANLOW,

IN Cl.FRK~1 CfflCE

u.s. 01srn:c1 coun F o N.Y.

*

Defendants.

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

JUN 122017

*

LONG ISLAND OFFICE

On April 10, 2017, pro se plaintiff Anthony Crivello Russo ("plaintiff') filed a complaint
in this Court against Linda Harahan, Lisa Chutka and Karin Hanlow (collectively, "defendants").
Plaintiff did not remit the Court's $400.00 filing fee nor did he file an application to proceed in

forma pauperis at the time he filed the complaint. Accordingly, on April 14, 2017, the Court sent
plaintiff a Notice of Deficiency (the "Notice") informing plaintiff that, in order for his case to
proceed, he must either remit the filing fee or complete and return the enclosed application to
proceed in forma pauperis with fourteen ( 14) days from the date of the Notice. (See Docket Entry
No. 2.)

On April 26, 2017, plaintiff timely filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

However, for the reasons that follow, the complaint is transferred to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and the determination of plaintiff's application to
proceed in forma pauperis is reserved for the transferee court.
Under the general venue provision:
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 of the
action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may

1

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. § 139l(b). Here, although plaintiffs claims are difficult to comprehend, it appears that
the events giving rise to plaintiffs claims are alleged to have occurred in Wallkill, New York (see
Compl., generally).

Liberally construed, plaintiff appears to challenge the assessment of

property taxes for property located in Wallkill, New York. Named as defendants are Linda
Harahan, the Receiver of Taxes for the Town of Wallkill, and Lisa Chutka, the Assessor for the
Town ofWallkill. 1 Wallkill is located in Orange County, New York and Orange County is within
the Southern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(b). Under 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b) (2),
venue is therefore proper in the Southern District of New York.
In determining whether to transfer to another district where the action might have been
brought, courts should consider: ( 1) the plaintiffs choice of forum, (2) the convenience of the
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. See New York Marine and Gen. Ins.
Co. v. LaFarge No. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir. 2010). Although a plaintiffs 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 the operative facts did not occur there. See
Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir. 2001).

In this case, there appears to be no connection whatsoever between this lawsuit and the
Eastern District of New York other than the fact that plaintiff resides in Bay Shore, New York.
Instead, the events giving rise to plaintiffs claims have taken place in Orange County, New York.
Thus, based on the totality of circumstances, it is in the interest of justice to transfer this action
1

See www.townofwallkill.com (last visited June 8, 2017).

2

under§ 1404(a) to the Southern District of New York.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under § 1404(a). The Court makes no
determination with regard to plaintiffs in forma pauperis application and that motion is reserved
for the transferee court. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Order to
the plaintiff and to mark this case closed.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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
any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
A

,r'\

I

s/ Joseph F. Bianco

1f

.__
J;pheF. Bianco, U.S.D.J.

Dated:

June\)., 2017
Central Islip, NY

3