In re: Alex Perez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE: ALEX PEREZ 26-CV-1233 (LTS)
TRANSFER ORDER
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Otisville Correctional Facility, brings this pro se
action asserting various claims arising from being stabbed in Wallkill Correctional Facility and
litigation challenging his conviction; these events occurred in Ulster County and Albany County.
For the following reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York.
BACKGROUND
The Court construes Plaintiff’s letter as a complaint. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges
that his defense counsel, Dreyer Boyajian LLP (“the Firm”), “had [him] stabbed at Wallkill”
Correctional Facility, which is in Wallkill, Ulster County, New York, days after Plaintiff called
about the status of his second appeal.1 (ECF No. 1 at 1.) On or around August 7, 2025, Plaintiff
was carrying a document on his way to the Wallkill Correctional Facility’s law library when he
was stabbed; on August 7, 2025, that document went missing. (Id.) During a fire drill, “they”
(presumably other documents) were planted in Plaintiff’s locker. (Id.) On October 6, 2025, “a
lady” (whose name the Court cannot discern from Plaintiff’s handwriting) came to cover up the
events of August 7, 2025. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that documents were planted in Otisville
Correctional Facility. (Id.) The Firm, with others’ help, “sabotaged eviction, real estate
1 The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation
are as in the original unless noted otherwise.
Case 9:26-cv-00992-ECC-DJS Document 3 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 4

2
appraisals, attacked [Plaintiff’s] daughter” and “went into a home with people line in [] and
removed gas lines and water lines.” (Id.)
Plaintiff asserts several claims regarding his representation and his trial; he also asserts
that his conviction was fraudulently obtained. Plaintiff alleges that “people were planted in the
jury pool” for his July trial (id. at 1–2), which was held in Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Albany (id. at 4–10).
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).
Plaintiff does not plead the residence of any defendants, much less name any defendants;
therefore, the Court cannot determine under Section 1391(b)(1) whether venue is proper in this
district. Plaintiff does assert that the alleged events giving rise to his claims occurred (1) at the
Wallkill Correctional Facility, which is in Ulster County, and (2) during his jury trial in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Albany, both of which fall within the
Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112. Thus, even if the Court were to assume that
any named 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 at Wallkill Correctional
Case 9:26-cv-00992-ECC-DJS Document 3 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Facility and during his trial, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the
Northern 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
Under Section 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate in this case. The underlying
events occurred at Wallkill Correctional Facility, located in Ulster County, and in Albany County
where Plaintiff’s criminal proceedings were held; it is thus reasonable to expect that all relevant
documents and witnesses also would be at Wallkill Correctional Facility, and the trial court. The
Northern 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 Northern
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
Case 9:26-cv-00992-ECC-DJS Document 3 Filed 04/22/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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 Northern 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.2 No summons
shall 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: 	April 22, 2026
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
New York, New York
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge
2 Plaintiff did not submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis with a prisoner
authorization form or pay fees.
Case 9:26-cv-00992-ECC-DJS Document 3 Filed 04/22/26 Page 4 of 4