Oriol v. Munoz et al
Filing
4
TRANSFER ORDER: 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, 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 an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/16/21) (rdz) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Office of the Clerk of Court for processing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LOURDES ORIOL,
Plaintiff,
-against-
21-CV-9377 (LTS)
RICHARD MUNOZ; FORT MANAGEMENT
CO.; JAMESTOWN TENANTS CORP.,
TRANSFER ORDER
Defendants.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action invoking the Court’s federal question
jurisdiction. She asserts that Defendants harassed and discriminated against her as a tenant of a
property located in Brooklyn, New York. For the following reasons, the Court transfers this
action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
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 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). For venue purposes, a “natural person” resides in the district where the
person is domiciled. See § 1391(c)(1).
Plaintiff, a resident of Brooklyn, New York, asserts that Defendants harassed and
discriminated against her in housing. She alleges that the property at issue is located in Brooklyn,
and she lists addresses for Defendants in Brooklyn. Because Plaintiff does not allege that any
defendant resides in this district or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
her claims arose in this district, venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).
Plaintiff’s claims arose in Kings County, which is in the Eastern District of New York. See 28
U.S.C. § 112(c). Accordingly, venue lies in the Eastern District of New York, see § 1391(b)(2),
and this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New York, see
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
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, 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 an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on
the docket.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 16, 2021
New York, New York
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?