United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WALLACE CAPEL, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Plaintiff, who currently
resides at the Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility,
challenges the provision of medical care provided to him at
the facility. Specifically, Plaintiff appears to allege he is
being force medicated and that the medications prescribed to
him have resulted in breast disease and bone loss. Plaintiff
further alleges the defendant physicians at Taylor Hardin
know of the side effects caused by the medication they
prescribed. As relief, Plaintiff requests damages and
dismissal of his case with mental health. Doc. 1.
Taylor Harden Secure Mental Facility is in Tuscaloosa,
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. §
action filed by an inmate under authority of 42 U.S.C. §
1983 “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.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b). The law further provides that “[f]or
the convenience of parties and witnesses, 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).
actions about which Plaintiff complains occurred or are
occurring within the jurisdiction of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The
factual allegations in the complaint reflect a majority of
the named defendants are in the Northern District of Alabama.
Although the Montgomery County Jail, the State of Alabama,
Montgomery, Alabama, and Mental Health have also been
docketed as defendants, these entities are not amenable to
suit under § 1983 or the complaint states no allegations
that associate these defendants with the alleged
constitutional violations. See Dean v. Barber, 951
F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992); Papasan v. Allain,
478 U.S. 265 (1986); Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d
1316, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008). Thus, the majority of material
witnesses and evidence associated with those claims relevant
to Plaintiff's allegations are in the Northern District
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
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
that on or before May 21, 2018, Plaintiff
may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any objection
filed must specifically identify the factual findings and
legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge's
Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous,
conclusive or general objections will not be considered by
the District Court. This Recommendation is not a final order
and, therefore, it is not appealable.
to file a written objection to the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall
bar a party from a de novo determination by the
District Court of factual findings and legal issues covered
in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge
on appeal the district court's order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except
upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of
justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v.
Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir.
1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th
 Plaintiff's complaint is
accompanied by a request for leave to proceed
informapauperis. Doc.2. A ruling on Plaintiff's
request for pauper status should be undertaken by
the United States District ...