Young v. Campbell et al (JCINMATE1)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Johnny M. Young; that this case be transferred to the USDC, for the Northern District of Alabama; Objections to R&R due by 6/1/2005. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 5/19/05. (ajr, )
Young v. Campbell et al (JCINMATE1)
Page 1 of 4
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION JOHNNY M. YOUNG, #090679, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-457-F WO
DONAL CAMPBELL, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Johnny M. Young, a state inmate, challenges the conditions of confinement to which he is subjected at the William E. Donaldson Correctional Facility. The aforementioned prison facility is located 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. § 1404.1
Attached to the plaintiff' s complaint is an affidavit in support of a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, in light of the April 1996 revisions to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and under the circumstances of this case, this court makes no determination with respect to such request as the assessment and collection of any filing fee should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Page 2 of 4
DISCUSSION A civil action filed under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "may be brought only 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). Although two the defendants, by virtue of their supervisory positions with the Alabama Department of Corrections, reside in the Middle District of Alabama, they are subject to service of process throughout the state and commonly defends suits in all federal courts of this state. Moreover, the plaintiff specifically attacks the conditions of
confinement at the William E. Donaldson Correctional Facility and it is clear from the complaint that those individuals personally involved in the daily operation of this facility reside in the Northern District of Alabama. Thus, the majority of witnesses and evidence associated with this case 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
Page 3 of 4
Cour t for the Northern District of Alabama for review and determination. 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 June 1, 2005 the parties shall 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,
Page 4 of 4
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. Done this 19th day of May, 2005.
/s/ Delores R. Boyd DELORES R. BOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?