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.

Knight v. Thomas

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

November 13, 2014

TOMMY JAMES KNIGHT, #149164, Plaintiff,
v.
KIM THOMAS, et al., Defendants

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

WALLACE CAPEL, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on an amended complaint filed by Tommy James Knight ("Knight"), a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Draper Correctional Facility. In the amended complaint, Knight challenges various actions taken against him during his prior incarceration at the Limestone Correctional Facility ("Limestone"). Amended Complaint - Doc. No. 19 at 2-6. Knight names Kim Thomas, the Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, Billy Mitchem, the warden of Limestone, Officer Page, a job officer at Limestone, and Mr. Imbody, an upholstery teacher at Limestone, as defendants in this cause of action.

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

II. DISCUSSION

A civil action asserting a violation of a prisoner's constitutional rights 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). However, 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).

The Limestone Correctional Facility is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Thus, the actions about which Knight complains occurred in the Northern District of Alabama. In addition, defendants Mitchem, Page and Imbody reside in the Northern District of Alabama, as do all correctional officials with personal knowledge of the alleged violations of Knight's constitutional rights. Although by virtue of his position as commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections the remaining defendant, Kim 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.[1] It is therefore clear that the defendants personally involved in the alleged unconstitutional actions and the majority of witnesses associated with the claims set forth in the amended complaint are located in the Northern District of Alabama.

In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that 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.

III. 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. It is further

ORDERED that on or before December 1, 2014, the parties may file objections to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the 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.