UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROMAN S. GORBUNOV, Plaintiff, -against- 26-CV-816 (LTS) DISTRICT ATTORNEY MELINDA KATZ, TRANSFER ORDER QUEENS SUPREME CRIMINAL COURT; JUDGE IRA H. MARGULIS, QUEENS SUPREME CRIMINAL COURT, Defendants. 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). 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. 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 New York, New York

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