Abney v. Foster et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 7

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1404; Objections to R&R due by 1/17/2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 1/3/2014. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
SHAWN L. ABNEY, #169106,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

SGT. FOSTER, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-865-WHA
[WO]

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
In this civil action, Shawn L. Abney ["Abney"], a state inmate, complains that
correctional officers at the Donaldson Correctional Facility used excessive force against him in
September of 2013. Abney further asserts that he was denied medical treatment at this facility
for injuries suffered during the alleged assault.1
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 Northern District
of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
II. DISCUSSION
A federal civil action regarding purported violations of a prisoner's constitutional rights
should be brought "in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside

1

The plaintiff initially filed this complaint in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama.
On November 27, 2013, the medical defendant removed the cause of action to this court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. The correctional defendants consented to and joined in this removal.

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).
However, the law further provides that "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 individuals named as defendants reside in the Northern District of Alabama. The
Donaldson Correctional Facility is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Thus, the actions about which the plaintiff complains
likewise occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama. The claims asserted by the plaintiff are therefore beyond the venue of this
court. However, 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 Northern 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 Northern District of Alabama for review and determination.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be
transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama pursuant to
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. It is further
ORDERED that on or before January 17, 2014, the parties may file objections to the
Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate
2

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 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 3rd day of January, 2014.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker
SUSAN RUSS WALKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3