Bell v. King et al (INMATE2)

Filing 3

RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama as further set out. Objections to R&R due by 12/15/2009. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 12/1/09. (sl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION _____________________________ D A R R IU S BRYANT BELL, #149 992 P l a in tif f , v. T R O Y KING, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . _____________________________ * * * * * 2:09-CV-1067-ID (W O ) RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE P la in tif f , Darrius Bell ("Bell"), files this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He c o m p la in s about matters associated with the revocation of his parole as a result of violating c e rta in provisions of the Alabama Community Notification Act. Plaintiff's complaint reflects th a t the matters about which he complains in this action occurred at the parole office located in Birmingham, Alabama, and "county jail/court." The named defendants include parole o f f ic e r Suzzette Clay, parole hearing officer John Anthony, Attorney General Troy King, W ard en Kenneth Jones, Deputy District Attorney Kechia Sanders, Alabama Parole Board m e m b e r Velinda Weatherly, and the Chairman of the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles. D IS C U S S IO N A civil action filed under authority of 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 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 f u rth e r provides that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of ju s tic e , a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district . . . where it might h av e been brought." 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). It is clear from the allegations in the complaint that the actions about which Plaintiff c o m p l a in s occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the N o rth e rn District of Alabama. Although Defendants King, Weatherly, Jones, and the C h a irm a n of the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles reside in the Middle District of A la b a m a , they are subject to service of process throughout the state and commonly defend s u its in all federal courts of this state. Moreover, it appears from Plaintiff's recitation of the f a cts that a majority of witnesses and evidence associated with this case are located in the N o rth e rn District of Alabama. 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 Northern D is tric t of Alabama.1 In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that in the interest of justice and for the 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. In so ruling, this court does not preliminarily scrutinize the merits of Plaintiff's complaint against the named parties. 1 2 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 the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama p u rs u a n t to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1404.2 It is further O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before December 15, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically id e n tif y the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. F r iv o lo u s , conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The p a rtie s are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. 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 f in d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e rr o 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 2 This court makes no ruling on 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 Northern District of Alabama. 3 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 1 st day of December 2009. /s/Terry 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?