Whyte V Evans

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MAURICE L. WHYTE,
Plaintiff,
25-CV-5164 (LTS)
-against-
TRANSFER ORDER
M. EVANS,
Defendant.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at MDC Brooklyn in New York, brings this action
pro se. Plaintiff asserts claims against a correction officer at MDC Brooklyn for alleged
violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. For the following reasons, this action is transferred
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
DISCUSSION
Under the general venue statute, 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
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).
It is unclear if venue is proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(1), based on
Defendant’s residence, because there are no facts in the complaint about where Defendant is
domiciled.
Venue of Plaintiff’s claims does not appear to be proper in this district under Section

1391(b)(2), based on the place where the events giving rise to the claims occurred. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant violated his rights at MDC Brooklyn. Brooklyn is in Kings County, which
is within the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c). Because the events giving
rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Kings County, venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in
the Eastern District of New York.
Even if venue is proper in the district where a case is filed, a court may transfer the case
“[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice” to any other district
where it might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In determining whether transfer is
appropriate, courts consider the following 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). A
plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded less deference where the plaintiff does not reside in the
chosen forum and the operative events did not occur there. See Iragorri v. United Tech. Corp.,
274 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir. 2001).
Under Section 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate in this case. The underlying
events occurred in MDC Brooklyn in Kings County, where Plaintiff is incarcerated and
Defendant is employed. It is reasonable to expect that all relevant documents and witnesses also
would be found in Kings County. The Eastern District of New York thus appears to be a more

convenient forum for this action. Accordingly, the Court transfers this action to the United States
District Court for the Eastern 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 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 the case in the Southern District of New York.
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: June 24, 2025
New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge