Rankin v. The City of New York

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: August 12, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-06493
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ADORA RANKIN, Plaintiff, -against- 25-CV-6493 (LTS) THE CITY OF NEW YORK; LIEUTENANT TRANSFER ORDER GATTO; P.O. IACONO; P.O. MARINARO; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-2 (NYPD OFFICERS), Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who resides in Jamaica, Queens County, New York, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated her rights at her residence in Jamaica, Queens County.1 Named as Defendants are the City of New York, New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) Lieutenant Gatto, NYPD Officer Iacono, NYPD Officer Marinaro, and two John Doe NYPD officers. For the following reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern 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.

1 The mailing address that Plaintiff provides – 99 Wall Street, New York, NY – is a virtual office space. She alleges in the complaint that she resides in Jamaica, Queens. 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 Defendants violated her rights in Jamaica, Queens County. Queens County falls within the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c). Plaintiff does not provide residential addresses for any of the individual defendants, but the City of New York is considered to reside in this District and in the Eastern District of New York.2 If the Court assumes that all defendants reside in the State of New York, venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(1) in both this District and the Eastern District of New York. However, because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Queens County, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern 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

2 This judicial district, the Southern District of New York, is comprised of the following New York State counties: (1) New York (New York City Borough of Manhattan); (2) Bronx (New York City Borough of the Bronx); (3) Westchester; (4) Dutchess; (5) Rockland; (6) Orange; (7) Putnam; and (8) Sullivan. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(b). The Eastern District of New York is comprised of the following New York State counties: (1) Kings (New York City Borough of Brooklyn); (2) Queens (New York City Borough of Queens); (3) Richmond (New York City Borough of Staten Island); (4) Nassau; and (5) Suffolk. See § 112(c). 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 in Queens County, where Plaintiff resides, and the individual NYPD officers are employed. It is reasonable to expect that the relevant documents and witnesses also would be in Queens County. The Eastern 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 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 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: August 12, 2025 New York, New York

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