Hamby v. Dr. Hernandez et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM ORDER The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action theUnited States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/23/2016.(aah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WILLIAM DAVIDSON HAMBY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

: Civil Act. No. 16-331-RGA

DR. HERNANDEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington this

23 cl- of May, 2016;
day

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, for the reasons that
follow:
Plaintiff William Davidson Hamby, Jr., an inmate at the West Tennessee State
Penitentiary in Henning, Tennessee, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(D.I. 1.) He appears prose. He did not pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The action is brought against four
defendants, all of whom are located in the State of Tennessee. (See D.I. 1 at 2).
Plaintiff is imprisoned in the State of Tennessee.
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.,

Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fogel, 656 F.3d 167 (3d Cir. 2011).
Here, it does not appear that any of the events or omissions giving rise to
Plaintiffs claims occurred in Delaware. 1 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 Western District of Tennessee, where Plaintiff and the
Defendants are located and where, based upon the allegations, it appears that all of the
events took place.
For the above reasons, the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action the
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.

1

Plaintiff recognizes as much, as he justifies the suit being filed in Delaware
because of alleged "cronyism" between Tennessee federal courts and the Tennessee
Department of Correction. Such an allegation does not create venue in Delaware.

2