Martin v. State of New York et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
GARY MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
C.O. TAYLOR – UPSTATE BOX et al.,
Defendants.
25-CV-828-LJV
ORDER
The pro se plaintiff, Gary Martin, is a prisoner confined at the Five Points
Correctional Facility in Romulus, New York. See Docket Item 1 at 2.1 He brings this
action—raising claims arising from an alleged assault by officers at the Upstate
Correctional Facility and his improper detention in that facility’s “box”—under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Docket Item 1 at 2-3, 5. He also has moved to proceed in forma
pauperis (that is, as a person who should have the prepayment of the ordinary filing fee
waived because he cannot afford it). Docket Item 5. For the reasons that follow, this
action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York.
1 Page numbers in docket citations refer to ECF pagination.
Case 1:25-cv-00828-LJV Document 6 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 4

2
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.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Under 28 U.S.C. § 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).
When a case is filed in a district in which venue is improper, the court shall
dismiss the case “or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any
district . . . in which it could have been brought.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). “A district
court may transfer a case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) sua sponte.” Grefer v.
Chirco, 2023 WL 1798728, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2023) (italics omitted). The purpose
of section 1406(a)’s transfer provision is to “remov[e] whatever obstacles may impede
an expeditious and orderly adjudication of cases and controversies on their merits.”
Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 466-67 (1962).
Here, the events underlying Martin’s claims occurred at the Upstate Correctional
Facility in Malone, New York. See Docket Item 1 at 6; see also id. at 16-22 (describing
events underlying the two claims). Malone, New York, is located in Franklin County,
Case 1:25-cv-00828-LJV Document 6 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 4

3
and thus within the geographical confines of the Northern District of New York. See 28
U.S.C. § 112(a).2 Moreover, Martin does not allege that any defendant3 resides in this
District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).4 Thus, there is no apparent basis for venue in this
District.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, this Court finds that Martin’s action may not be
brought in this District. In the interest of justice, the Court therefore transfers this action
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a). This Court makes no ruling as to the sufficiency of the complaint,
Docket Item 1, nor does it consider the merits of Martin’s motion to proceed in forma
2 The complaint alleges that Martin reported his assault to a doctor and staff at
the Sing Sing Correctional Facility in Ossining, New York, but that those individuals did
nothing to help him. See Docket Item 1 at 5. Ossining, New York, is located in
Westchester County and is thus within the geographical confines of the Southern
District of New York. 28 U.S.C. § 112(b). But because Martin’s claims relate to his
alleged assault and subsequent placement in the Upstate Correctional Facility’s “Box,”
Docket Item 1 at 3-6, and the only specifically named defendants are three officers from
the Upstate Correctional Facility, id. at 2-3, that allegation does not change this Court’s
conclusion that transfer to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
New York is appropriate.
3 Martin specifically names three officers from the Upstate Correctional Facility as
defendants; he also says that there are “[a]t least ten others” that he “[w]ill reveal later.”
Docket Item 1 at 2-3.
4 Martin sues the defendants in their individual and official capacities. See
Docket Item 1 at 2-3. “Where . . . public officials are sued in their official capacities,
residence for venue purposes is where they perform their official duties.” Andrew H. by
Irene H. v. Ambach, 579 F. Supp. 85, 88 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Because Martin’s complaint does not allege that the defendants perform their
official duties within this District, the fact that he is suing the defendants in both their
individual and official capacities does not change the Court’s analysis.
Case 1:25-cv-00828-LJV Document 6 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 4

4
pauperis, Docket Item 5. The Court leaves those issues to the Northern District. The
judgment administratively closing this action, Docket Item 4, is vacated.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transfer this case to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	January 14, 2026
Buffalo, New York
/s/ Lawrence J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00828-LJV Document 6 Filed 01/14/26 Page 4 of 4