Boone v. Padgett et al (INMATE1)

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Felicia Boone; that this case be transferred to USDC for the Northern District of Alabama; Objections to R&R due by 7/5/2005. Signed by Judge Susan Russ Walker on 6/21/05. (ajr, )

Download PDF
Boone v. Padgett et al (INMATE1) Doc. 3 Case 2:05-cv-00566-MEF-SRW Document 3 Filed 06/21/2005 Page 1 of 4 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION FELICIA BOONE, #170210, Plaintiff, v. PAULINE PADGETT, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-566-F WO RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, Felicia Boone ("Boone"), a state inmate, alleges that the defendants violated her constitutional rights during parole revocation proceedings undertaken against her in Marengo County, Alabama. These proceedings arose from Boone's actions at the John Essex High School in Demopolis, Alabama. The aforementioned city is located in Marengo County which is within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern 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 Southern District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404.1 In light of the 1996 revisions to 28 U.S.C. 1915 and under the circumstances of this case, this court refrains from entering a ruling on the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as the assessment and collection of any filing fee should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-00566-MEF-SRW Document 3 Filed 06/21/2005 Page 2 of 4 DISCUSSION A civil action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 "may be brought . . . 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). 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). The named defendants reside in the Southern District of Alabama. All of the actions about which the plaintiff complains relate to actions which occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, the claims asserted by the plaintiff are beyond the venue of this court. It is clear from the face of the complaint 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 determination. 2 Case 2:05-cv-00566-MEF-SRW Document 3 Filed 06/21/2005 Page 3 of 4 CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1404.2 It is further ORDERED that on or before July 5, 2005 the parties shall file any 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 In recommending that this case be transferred, this court makes no determination with respect to the merits of the plaintiff's claims for relief. 2 3 Case 2:05-cv-00566-MEF-SRW Document 3 Filed 06/21/2005 Page 4 of 4 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, 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 21st day of June, 2005. /s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4

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?