Govan v. The State of Louisiana et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 2

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that this case be TRANSFERRED to United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division, United States Courthouse, Suite 2100, 800 Lafayette Street, Lafayette, Louisiana 70501, pursuant to 28 USC 1406(a); Objections to R&R due by 7/17/2007. Signed by Judge Terry F. Moorer on 7/6/2007. (wcl, )

Download PDF
Govan v. The State of Louisiana et al (INMATE 2) Doc. 2 Case 2:07-cv-00604-MEF-TFM Document 2 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION _____________________________ M A R IO N GOVAN, #221 463 P la in tif f, v. T H E STATE OF LOUISIANA, et al., Defendants. _____________________________ * * * * * 2:07-CV-604-MEF (WO) R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE O n June 29, 2007 Plaintiff, Marion Govan, an inmate incarcerated at the South L o u is ia n a Correctional Facility located in Basile, Alabama, filed this pro se civil action u n d e r the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff names as defendants the State of L o u isia n a and Deputy Warden Bullard and District Warden Copes of the Pine Prairie C o rre c tio n a l Center and/or South Louisiana Correctional Facility. He complains about m a tte rs which occurred at the Pine Prairie Correctional Center. Upon review of the instant c o m p lain t, the court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint against the named defendants should b e transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana p u rsua n t to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a).1 DISCUSSION A civil action filed under authority of 42 U.S.C. 1983 "may be brought . . . in (1) Plaintiff has not submitted the $350.00 filing fee nor a motion for leave to proceed in forma p a u p e r i s . The court finds that the assessment and collection of any filing fee should be undertaken by the U n i t e d States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:07-cv-00604-MEF-TFM Document 2 Filed 07/06/2007 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). The law fu rth e r provides that "[t]he district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in th e wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such c a s e to any district or division in which the case could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. 1 4 0 6 (a). It is clear from the allegations in the complaint that the actions about which Plaintiff co m p lain s occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western D is tric t of Louisiana. Moreover, it appears from Plaintiff' s recitation of the facts that the d e fe n d a n ts as well as a majority of witnesses and evidence associated with this case are lo c a te d in the Western District of Louisiana. Thus, the court concludes that from the face o f the complaint that the proper venue for this cause of action lies within the United States D is tric t Court for the Western District of Louisiana. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that in the interest of justice this case s h o u ld be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western L o u is ia n a for review and determination. District of 2 Case 2:07-cv-00604-MEF-TFM Document 2 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 3 of 4 C O N C L U SIO N A c c o r d in g ly , it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case b e TRANSFERRED to United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, L a fa y e tte Division, United States Courthouse, Suite 2100, 800 Lafayette Street, Lafayette, L o u is ia n a 70501, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). It is further ORDERED that on or before July 17, 2007 the parties are DIRECTED to file any o b je c tio n s to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the f in d in g s in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, co n clus ive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are a d v is e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a la b le . F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M a g is tra te Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District C o u rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual fin d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e rro r or manifest 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 P r ic h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c is io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p te m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e , this 6 th day of July 2007. 3 Case 2:07-cv-00604-MEF-TFM Document 2 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 4 of 4 /s /T e r r y F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER U N IT E D 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?