Hausey v. U.S. Postal Service et al (INMATE 2)
RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 USC 1406(a). Objections to R&R due by 9/12/2006. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 8/30/06. (sl, )
Hausey v. U.S. Postal Service et al (INMATE 2)
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O RTH ER N DIVISION __________________________________ T OM M IE LEE HAUSEY, #158 914 P la in tif f, v. U .S. POSTAL SERVICE, et al., Defendants. __________________________________ * * * * * 2:06-CV-750-MEF (WO)
R EC O M M E N D A TIO N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On August 23, 2006 Plaintiff Tommie Hausey, an inmate incarcerated at the Bullock Co un ty Correctional Facility located in Union Springs, Alabama, filed this pro se civil action un der the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff asserts allegations of fraud and due process violations with regard to his former employment with the United States Postal Service in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Plaintiff names as defendants Willie Johnson, Ron Arceneaux, Postal
Investigato r in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the U.S. Postal Service Administrator in Baton Rouge, L ouisiana, and William Henderson, Postmaster General for the Southwest Area Agency. Upon review of the instant complaint, the court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint against the nam ed defendants should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle D istrict of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).1
D IS C U S S IO N
This court makes no ruling on Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as the a ss es sm e n t and collection of any filing fee should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the M id d le District of Louisiana.
Page 2 of 3
A civil action filed under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "may be brought . . . in (1) a ju dicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a ju dicia l 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 "[t]he district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which the case could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). It is clear from the allegations in the complaint that all the actions about which Plaintiff com plain s occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle D istrict of Louisiana. Moreover, it appears from Plaintiff' s recitation of the facts that a m ajor ity of witnesses and evidence associated with this case are located in the Middle District of Louisiana. Thus, the court concludes that from the face of the complaint, the proper venue for this cause of action is the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that in the interest of justice this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana for review and determination.
C O N C L U SIO N
Page 3 of 3
Acc o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U .S.C . § 1406(a). It is further ORDERED that on or before September 12, 2006, the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the parties are 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. Failu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M agistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or m anifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th 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 30 th day of August, 2006.
/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY C H IEF 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?