United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WALLACE CAPEL, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
This 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on an
amended complaint filed by Timothy Mims, a state inmate
currently incarcerated at the Fountain Correctional Facility
who is now acting pro se. In the amended complaint,
Mims challenges the constitutionality of actions which
occurred in May of 2017 during his incarceration at the Bibb
Correctional Facility. The Bibb Correctional Facility is
located in Brent, Alabama in Bibb County, Alabama. Contrary
to the assertion set forth in the amended complaint, Doc. 29
at 3, Bibb County is not located within the Middle District
of Alabama; instead, it is located within the jurisdiction of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama.
Upon
thorough review of the amended complaint and under the
current circumstances of this case, the court finds 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(a).
II.
DISCUSSION
A 42
U.S.C. § 1983 “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 (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).
As
previously stated, the Bibb Correctional Facility is located
within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama. Thus, the actions about
which Mims complains occurred at a prison located in the
Northern District of Alabama. Moreover, it appears that the
majority of persons who could serve as material witnesses
reside in the Northern District of Alabama. Although it
appears that defendant Hutton now resides in the Middle
District of Alabama, Doc. 22, he is represented by an
Assistant Attorney General and there is nothing before this
court which prevents the transfer of this case, in the
interest of justice, to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama.
In
light of the foregoing and in accordance with applicable
federal law, the court finds that in the interest of justice
this case should be transferred to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama for review and
disposition.[1]
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(a).
The
parties may file objections to the Recommendation on or
before November 21, 2019. Any objection must
specifically identify the findings in the Recommendation to
which he objects. 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
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)(“When the magistrate provides such notice and a
party still fails to object to the findings of fact and
[legal conclusions which are then] adopted by the district
court the party may not challenge them on appeal in the
absence of plain error or manifest injustice.”);
Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir.
1989).
DONE.
---------