Stone v. Bedford Stuyvesant Family Health Center et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BIANCA STONE,
Plaintiff,
-against-
BEDFORD STUYVESANT FAMILY
HEALTH CENTER; OKPOMO GODWIN,
Defendants.
25-CV-10449 (LTS)
TRANSFER ORDER
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff brings this pro se action invoking the Court’s federal-question jurisdiction,
alleging that Bedford Stuyvesant Family Health Center committed medical malpractice in
Brooklyn, New York. Named as Defendants are Bedford Stuyvesant Family Health Center and
Okpomo Godwin. Plaintiff provides addresses for both Defendants in Brooklyn and asserts that
her claim arose in Brooklyn. 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.
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).
Case 1:26-cv-00349-RER-MMH Document 7 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated her rights at the Bedford Stuyvesant Family
Health Center. She provides addresses in Brooklyn for both Defendants, but it is not clear
whether the address provided for Defendant Godwin reflects her place of residence. The Bedford
Stuyvesant Family Health Center is located in Kings County, within the Eastern District of New
York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c). Because it is unknown where Defendant Godwin resides, it is
unclear whether venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(1) in either this District or the Eastern
District of New York. 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 in Brooklyn, 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
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).
Case 1:26-cv-00349-RER-MMH Document 7 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Under Section 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate in this case. The underlying
events occurred at the Bedford Stuyvesant Family Health Center in Brooklyn, and it is
reasonable to expect that nearly all relevant documents and witnesses also would be at the
Bedford Stuyvesant Family Health Center. 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. Plaintiff’s
application for the Court to request pro bono counsel (ECF No. 5) is left for the transferee court’s
determination. A summons shall not issue from this Court. This order closes this case.
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: 	January 6, 2026
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
New York, New York
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00349-RER-MMH Document 7 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>