United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
DANIEL B. CLARK, #194 417, Plaintiff,
v.
AL. DEPT. CORRECTIONS, Defendant.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Daniel
Bartholomew Clark, a state inmate and frequent federal
litigant, initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on
December 21, 2018. In his complaint, Clark seeks mandamus
relief for actions which occurred at the Holman Correctional
Facility.[1] Doc. 1 at 1-5. Upon review of the
complaint, the court finds that this case should be
transferred to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1406.[2]
II.
DISCUSSION
A 42
U.S.C. § 1983 “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 (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 when a case is filed “laying venue in the
wrong division or district” the court may, “if it
be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any
district . . . where it could have been brought.” 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a); see also 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a) (“For 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[.]”)
Holman
Correctional Facility is located within the jurisdiction of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama. Thus, the specific actions to which Clark was
subjected and about which he complains occurred in the
Southern District of Alabama. Additionally, a majority of
material witnesses and evidence associated with the claims
relevant to Clark's allegations are located in the
Southern District of Alabama. Under these circumstances,
Clark's claims are beyond the venue of this court. The
complaint shows that the proper venue for this cause of
action is the United States District Court for the Southern
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 Southern District of Alabama for review and
disposition.[3]
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be
TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
It is
further
ORDERED
that on or before February 28, 2019,
Plaintiff may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any
objection must specifically identify the findings in the
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
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 Cir.
1989).
---------