Neff v. State of Maryland et al.

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 8/23/16. (nmb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

FRANK M. NEFF,
Plaintiff,
v.

STATE OF MARYLAND, et aI.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) Civ. No. 15-829-SLR
)
)
)

)

MEMORANDUM
1. Introduction. Plaintiff Frank M. Neff ("plaintiff"), an inmate at the Eastern
Correctional Institute, Westover, Maryland, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. (0.1. 1) He appears pro se and was granted permission to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (0.1. 12, 14) The action is brought against six
defendants, all of whom are located in the State of Maryland. Plaintiff is imprisoned in
the State of Maryland.
2. Standard of review. A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely
on diversity of citizenship is properly brought in: "(1) a judicial district in which any
defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is
located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of
the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be
brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject
to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
The court may transfer a case "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the

interest of justice, ... to any other district or division where it might have been brought."
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court may raise venue and issue a Section 1404(a) transfer
order sua sponte. See e.g., Arnica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fogel, 656 F.3d 167 (3d Cir. 2011).
3. Discussion. Here, it does not appear that any of the events or omissions
giving rise to plaintiff's claims occurred in Delaware. The court considers the
allegations in the complaint and finds the interests of justice favor transferring the action
to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, where plaintiff and
defendants are located and where, based upon the allegations, it appears that all of the
events took place.
4. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the Clerk of Court will be directed to
transfer this action the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
Baltimore Division. The motion to amend (0.1. 23) will be denied without prejudice to
renew. A separate order shall issue.

Date: August ~, 2016

UNITED STAT S DISTRICT JUDGE

2