Gorbunov v. Katz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ROMAN S. GORBUNOV,
Plaintiff,
-against-
DISTRICT ATTORNEY MELINDA KATZ,
QUEENS SUPREME CRIMINAL COURT;
JUDGE IRA H. MARGULIS, QUEENS
SUPREME CRIMINAL COURT,
Defendants.
26-CV-816 (LTS)
TRANSFER ORDER
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Wende Correctional Facility, brings this pro se
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his federally protected rights
Named as Defendants are Queens County District Attorney Melinda Katz, and Queens County
Supreme Court Judge Ira H. Margulis. For the following reasons, the Court transfers this action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 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 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.
Under Section 1391(c), 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-00709-TAM Document 5 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff alleges that “[a]uthorities of Queens put [him] in custody,” and he seeks to “be
released.” (ECF 1 at 4.) Plaintiff does not plead the residence of any of the defendants, only
asserting that the alleged events giving rise to his claims occurred in Queens. Because
Defendants are employed in Queens, where the alleged events occurred, from the face of the
complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, if a plaintiff files a case in the wrong venue, the Court “shall
dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which
it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Plaintiff’s claims arose in Queens County,
which is in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly, venue lies in the
Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and in the interest of justice, the Court
transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 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. Local Civil
Rule 83.1, directing the Clerk of Court to effectuate transfer seven business days from the date of
this order, is waived. A summons shall not issue from this Court. This order closes this case.
Case 1:26-cv-00709-TAM Document 5 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	February 6, 2026
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
New York, New York
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00709-TAM Document 5 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>