UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DONNA L. FRIEDEBERG, Plaintiff, -against- 25-CV-3959 (LTS) BOTH SACRED HEART CHURCHES OF TRANSFER ORDER NORWICH AND ESPECIALLY CONGREGANTS PAULETTE DEVINO & MIKE WOLAK, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who resides in Norwich, Connecticut, brings this pro se action alleging that Defendants violated her rights. Named as Defendants are “Both Sacred Heart Churches of Norwich,” and “congregants” Paulette Devino and Mike Wolak. For the following reasons, the Court transfers this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. 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). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated her rights in and around her residence in Norwich, Connecticut. Plaintiff provides a Norwich address for Devino and an address in Taftville, Connecticut for Wolak. Although Plaintiff does not provide addresses for “[b]oth Sacred Heart Churches of Norwich,” the Court presumes they are located in Norwich. Because

nothing in the complaint suggests that any of the defendants reside in this District or that the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).1 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 Norwich, Connecticut, which is in the District of Connecticut. See 28 U.S.C. § 86 (Connecticut constitutes one judicial district). Furthermore, all defendants appear to reside in Connecticut. Accordingly, venue lies in the District of Connecticut, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2), and in the interest of justice, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the District of

Connecticut, 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 District of Connecticut. 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.

1 This judicial district, the Southern District of New York, is comprised of the following New York State counties: (1) New York (New York City Borough of Manhattan); (2) Bronx (New York City Borough of the Bronx); (3) Westchester; (4) Dutchess; (5) Rockland; (6) Orange; (7) Putnam; and (8) Sullivan. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(b). 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: May 20, 2025 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge