United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
CORY L. ELLIS, Plaintiff,
WARDEN MEYERS, et al., Defendants.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
H. ENGLAND, III, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Cory L. Ellis has filed a pro se complaint in this
court on the form normally used to state claims pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). The plaintiff names the
following defendants in the complaint: Warden Meyers, Officer
D. Ray, Officer Downing, Lt. C. Gordy, and Cpt. Lawson.
(Id. at 2). The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
and “justice.” (Id. at 3-4).
plaintiff is incarcerated at Easterling Correctional Facility
(“Easterling”) in Clio, Alabama. (Id. at
2). The plaintiff alleges that on October 7, 2019, Officer D.
Ray witnessed two inmates threaten and assault him with a
lock. (Id.). Ray assisted the plaintiff post-assault
but then proceeded to deny knowledge of the perpetrators'
identities. (Id.). Captain Lawson instructed the
plaintiff to report the incident and general lack of dorm
security on a piece of paper, and give the document to
Officer Love to pass on to Warden Meyers. (Id.). The
plaintiff did so but has not received a response.
(Id.). The plaintiff also has not received an
envelope to report the incident to I&I and was told to
‘call someone who cares' when he requested a
Section 1983 complaint form. (Id.). The plaintiff
currently is housed in an Easterling segregation cell with
friends of the inmates who assaulted him and fears for his
the allegations of the complaint, venue in not proper in the
Northern District of Alabama. A federal 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 . . .
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); see also Nails
v. Coleman Low Federal Inst., 440 Fed.Appx. 704, 706
(11th Cir. 2011). Only the events that directly give rise to
a claim are relevant. Jenkins Brick Co. v. Bremer,
321 F.3d 1366, 1371 (11th Cir. 2003).
plaintiff's allegations suggest no connection to the
Northern District of Alabama. Defendants appear to reside in
Clio, Alabama, where Easterling Correctional Facility is
located, and the events made the basis of the plaintiff's
complaint occurred in that city. The city of Clio is located
in Barbour County, which is in the Middle District of
Alabama. As such, in the interest of justice, this action is
due to be transferred to the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Alabama. See 28 U.S.C. §
1406(a) (“The district court of a district in which is
filed a case in the wrong . . . district shall dismiss, or it
be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any . .
. district in which it could have been brought.”)
foregoing reasons, the undersigned
RECOMMENDS that this action be
TRANSFERRED to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
of Right to Object
plaintiff may file specific written objections to this report
and recommendation. Any objections must be filed with the
Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) calendar days from the
date the report and recommendation is entered. Objections
should specifically identify all findings of fact and
recommendations to which objection is made and the specific
basis for objection. Failure to object to factual findings
will bar later review of those findings, except for plain
error. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh'g denied,
474 U.S. 1111 (1986); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d
1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2013). Objections also
should specifically identify all claims contained in the
complaint which the report and recommendation fails to
address. Objections should not contain new allegations,
present additional evidence, or repeat legal arguments.
receipt of objections, a United States District Judge will
make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report and recommendation to which objection is made and
may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the
findings of fact and recommendations made by the magistrate
judge. The district judge also may refer this action back to
the magistrate judge with instructions for further
plaintiff may not appeal the magistrate judge's report
and recommendation directly to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The plaintiff may only