Corbin v. Department of Veteran Affairs et al (JOINT ASSIGN)
ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Steven T. Corbin, that this action is transferred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, a district in which this action could have been brought. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take the steps necessary to effect the transfer. This case is closed in this court. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/13/2015. (dmn, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
STEVEN T. CORBIN,
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
CIVIL ACTION NO.
Petitioner Steven T. Corbin, proceeding pro se, has
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 relating to his involuntary civil
commitment by order of the Jefferson County probate
petition and its exhibits, the court concludes that
accordingly, this action will be transferred, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), to the Northern District of
without his consent to Hill
Crest Behavioral Health
Center, where he was held illegally for six days, from
May 6 through May 13, 2015, in violation of his due
process rights and Alabama law.
See Complaint (doc.
injury suffered by petitioner,” and enjoin the “State
of Alabama to vacate all charges from a confidential
further claims that the VA wrongfully denied his claim
for service-connected disability and that Hill Crest
failed to comply with Alabama law and committed medical
malpractice during his admission to the facility.
Attachment to Complaint (doc. no. 1-1); see also Motion
to Amend Petition (doc. no. 2)).
the Northern District of Alabama.
He alleges that the
Jefferson County probate court ordered his commitment
Medical Center in Birmingham, he was admitted to Hill
Crest, also in Birmingham, where he remained until his
discharge six days later.1
See Complaint (doc. no. 1)
Sylacauga); id. (¶¶ 2-4, 10(c); Attachment to Complaint
(doc. no. 1-1); 28 U.S.C. § 81(a)(3), (4) (designating
which counties lie in the Northern District).
would not lie in this district for petitioner’s habeas
petition, even if the court were to construe it to
assert constitutional or state-law tort claims against
the VA or to seek review of a VA disability benefit
Petitioner refers to the VA Medical Center as
See, e.g., Attachment to Complaint (doc. no.
1-1), p. 1 (alleging that the VA referred petitioner
“to the VA Medical Center in Birmingham (UAB) for a
standard blood test” and, later that day, “the (UAB) VA
Medical Center Staff Police” held him against his
2. In this order, the court addresses venue only,
and intends no suggestion that petitioner is entitled
located); § 1391(e)(1) (general venue statute providing
action not involving real property against a federal
defendant resides, a district in which a substantial
district in which the plaintiff resides); § 1402(b)
district where the plaintiff resides or wherein the act
or omission complained of occurred”).
to habeas relief; that the transferee court must
construe the petition to include constitutional, FTCA,
or disability-appeal claims against the VA; or, even,
that this court (or any federal district court) has
jurisdiction to entertain any such claims against the
The court also makes no determination that the
filing fee petitioner paid to commence this habeas
action ($ 5.00) is sufficient to permit him to pursue
any other civil claims in this lawsuit.
transferred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), to the
United States District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama, a district in which this action could have
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take the
steps necessary to effect the transfer.
This case is closed in this court.
DONE, this the 13th day of July, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson____
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“The 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 it could have been
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?