Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harris v. Thomas

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

June 5, 2014

DARNELL HARRIS, #249 278, Plaintiff,
v.
KIM THOMAS, Defendant.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SUSAN RUSS WALKER, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 damages action on May 5, 2014, against Commissioner Kim Thomas. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Limestone Correctional Facility in Harvest, Alabama, which is within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Upon review of the factual allegations presented in the complaint, the court concludes that this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.[1]

I. DISCUSSION

A civil action filed by an inmate under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "may be brought... in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred... or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The law further provides that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district... where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

A review of Plaintiff's complaint reflects that he seeks to assert violations of his constitutional rights with respect to HIPAA violations, discrimination, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. Although the factual development of the asserted constitutional violations is limited at this juncture, Plaintiff does indicate that the actions challenged and about which he has personal knowledge are occurring or have occurred at a correctional facility located in the Northern District of Alabama, a facility in which Plaintiff is currently incarcerated. Moreover, those individuals personally responsible for providing for Plaintiff's medical care and well-being are employed at an institution outside the jurisdiction of this court. Although Defendant Thomas resides in the Middle District of Alabama, he is subject to service of process throughout the state and commonly defends suits in all federal courts of this state. Thus, the court concludes that from the face of the complaint, the proper venue for this cause of action is the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

In light of the foregoing, the court concludes in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for review and determination.

II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1404.[2]

It is further

ORDERED that on or before June 19, 2014, Plaintiff may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised this Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and advisements in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar a party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc ), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.