Teat v. Riley et al (INMATE1)
RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama as further set out in order. Objections to R&R due by 6/18/2006. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 6/5/06. (sl, )
Teat v. Riley et al (INMATE1)
Page 1 of 4
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION H U G H W. TEAT, #107484, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C IV IL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-484-WHA [W O ]
B O B RILEY, et al., Defendants
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Hugh W. Teat ["Teat"], a state inmate, challenges the c o n s titu tio n a lity of the conditions of confinement to which he is subjected at the William E. D o n a ld so n Correctional Facility. The aforementioned correctional facility is located within th e jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. U p o n 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 D is tric t of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.1 D IS C U S S IO N A civil action filed under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "may be brought only in (1)
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
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 c laim occurred . . . or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is n o district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). However, th e 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 majority of defendants reside in the Northern District of Alabama. Although by v i r t u e of their positions as governor of the State of Alabama and commissioner of the A lab a m a Department of Corrections two of the named defendants reside in the Middle D istric t of Alabama, these individuals are subject to service of process throughout the state a n d commonly defends suits in all federal courts of this state. Moreover, it appears from the p la in tif f 's recitation of facts that only correctional officials assigned to the William E. D o n a l d s o n Correctional Facility are personally involved in the alleged constitutional v io la tio n s made the basis for the instant complaint and the actions about which he complains a r e occurring at this institution which is located in the Northern District of Alabama. Thus, it is clear that the majority of witnesses and evidence associated with this case are located in th e Northern District of Alabama. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that in the interest of justice and for the
Page 3 of 4
co n v en ienc e of the parties this case should be transferred to the United States District Court f o r the Northern District of Alabama for review and determination. CONCLUSION A c c o r d in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case b e transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama p u rsua n t to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. It is further ORDERED that on or before June 18, 2006 the parties may file objections to the R e c o m m e n d a tio n . Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive o r general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised th a t this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a i l u re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the D is tric t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a tta c k i n g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D istrict Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.
W a in w r ig h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en b a n c ), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed
Page 4 of 4
d o w n prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e this 5 th day of June, 2006.
/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY C H IE F 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?