Satchell v. Upstate of New York et al

Filing 5

TRANSFER ORDER: The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Northern 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 in this court. The Court certifies, under 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). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 3/6/2025) (vfr) Transmission to Office of the Clerk of Court for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOHN SATCHELL,
Plaintiff,
-against-

25-CV-1780 (LTS)

UPSTATE OF NEW YORK; EMPLOYEES
OF DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

TRANSFER ORDER

Defendants.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora,
Clinton County, New York, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that
Defendants violated his rights at Clinton Correction Facility. Plaintiff sues “Upstate of New
York” and several unidentified correction officers employed at Clinton Correctional Facility. For
the following reasons, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York.
DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), 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 (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.
For venue purposes, a “natural person” resides in the district where the person is
domiciled, and an “entity with the capacity to sue and be sued” resides in any judicial district
where it is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question. See 28
U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1), (2).

Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to his claims occurred at Clinton Correctional
Facility, which is located in Clinton County, which falls within the Northern District of New
York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Plaintiff does not plead the residence of any of the defendants, but
he states that the unidentified correction officers are employed at Clinton Correctional Facility.
Even if the Court did assume that Defendants reside in this District and that venue is proper here
under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at Clinton
Correctional Facility, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Northern
District of New York.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), even if a case is filed in a jurisdiction where venue is proper,
a court may transfer the case to any other district where it might have been brought “[f]or the
convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In
determining whether transfer is appropriate, courts consider the following ten factors: (1) the
convenience of witnesses; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the locus of operative facts;
(4) the availability of process to compel the attendance of the unwilling witnesses; (5) the
location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (6) the relative
means of the parties; (7) the forum’s familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded
to the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (9) trial efficiency; and (10) the interest of justice, based on the
totality of circumstances. Keitt v. N.Y. City, 882 F. Supp. 2d 412, 459-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see
also N.Y. Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaFarge No. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir. 2010)
(setting forth similar factors).
Under Section 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate in this case. The underlying
events occurred at Clinton Correctional Facility, where Plaintiff is incarcerated and Defendants
are employed, and it is reasonable to expect that the relevant documents and witnesses also

2

would be at Clinton Correctional Facility. The Northern District of New York appears to be a
more convenient forum for this action. Accordingly, the Court transfers this action to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of New York. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see D.H. Blair
& Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106 (2d Cir. 2006) (“District courts have broad discretion in
making determinations of convenience under Section 1404(a) and notions of convenience and
fairness are considered on a case-by-case basis.”).
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court
for the Northern 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 in this court.
The Court certifies, under 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).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 6, 2025
New York, New York
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge

3