DEGLAIRE v. FRENCH STATE et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PIERRE DEGLAIRE,
Plaintiff,
-against-
FRENCH STATE; BANKS; PRIVATE
ACTORS,
Defendants.
25-CV-10163 (LTS)
TRANSFER ORDER
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is a resident of France, brings this action pro se. Named as Defendants are
the “French State,” “Banks,” and “Private Actors.” For the following reasons, the Court transfers
this action, in the interest of justice, to the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff styles the complaint as a “Global Cross-Jurisdictional Action” and captions it for
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, as well as the European Court of
Human Rights, and the United Kingdom’s High Court of Justice. (ECF 1, at 1.) Plaintiff does not
allege that any Defendants reside in the Southern District of New York, or, as far as the Court can
tell, that a substantial amount of the events giving rise to his claims occurred in this District. On
January 8, 2026, Plaintiff filed a letter in this Court, which states, among other things, that this
case “was substantively and jurisdictionally intended to be brought” in the District of Columbia,
and that the decision to file in New York was “made solely as an emergency protective
measure.”1 (ECF 5, at 2.) Plaintiff further states that he intended to file in the District of
1 Plaintiff asserts that “repeated documented interceptions of legal correspondence”
Case 1:26-cv-02070-UNA Document 6 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Columbia “due to the federal nature of the claims, the location of the relevant institutional actors,
and the broader jurisdictional implications.” (Id. at 1.) In his letter, Plaintiff requests, among
other relief, an order “regarding the appropriate procedural mechanism for transmission, re-
filing, or continuation of this matter before the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia.” (Id. at 4.)
Because the complaint initiating this action is captioned for the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia, and not this court, and because Plaintiff has stated his
intention to file this action in that court and has requested that the action be permitted to continue
in that court, the Court transfers this action, in the interest of justice, to the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“For the convenience of partied or
witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district or division where it might have been brought[.]”).
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action, in the interest of justice, to the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 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.
Because Plaintiff emergency injunctive relief, the Court further directs the Clerk of Court
to transfer this action to the District Court for the District of Columbia immediately upon entry
of this order; the Court waives the seven-day waiting period contained in Local Civil Rule 83.1.
rendered remotely filing in the District of Columbia “impracticable and unsafe.” (Id. at 2.)
Case 1:26-cv-02070-UNA Document 6 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 3

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: 	January 12, 2026
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
New York, New York
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-02070-UNA Document 6 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 3