SALVADOR v. SYKES

Filing 5

ORDER: The magistrate judge's 3 Report and Recommendation in each of the cases listed herein is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order, but the recommendation has been altered as discussed in this Order. Th e listed cases are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The clerk of court is directed to file a copy of this Order in each case and to close the files accordingly. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 2/12/2018. (djb)

Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN RE:

PRO SE ACTIONS FILED
BY PRINCESS AMINA SALVADOR

4:95mc40111
/

ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff, Princess Amina Salvador, recently filed 52 civil actions1 in the
Northern District of Florida. On review of the papers filed in the cases listed below,
and with the concurrence of all district judges assigned to these cases, the Court has
sua sponte determined that these cases present common questions of law and fact
such that they should be handled in a singular administrative manner.
3:17-cv-00919-RV-EMT

SALVADOR v. BEAZZO

3:17-cv-00920-LC-CJK

SALVADOR v. DOUGLAS

3:18-cv-00013-RV-CJK

SALVADOR v. SYKES

3:18-cv-00014-RV-EMT

SALVADOR v. ARIAL

3:18-cv-00015-MCR-CJK

SALVADOR v. NORMAN

3:18-cv-00016-LC-CJK

SALVADOR v. ARIAL

3:18-cv-00017-LC-EMT

SALVADOR v. SIMMONS

1

Four of the 52 cases have been previously disposed of leaving 48 cases pending.

Page 2 of 7

3:18-cv-00018-LC-EMT

SALVADOR v. LIPPMAN

3:18-cv-00019-MCR-CJK

SALVADOR v. TRAFFORD

3:18-cv-00020-LC-CJK

SALVADOR v. HAMTY

3:18-cv-00021-LC-EMT

SALVADOR v. FITZPATRICK

3:18-cv-00022-MCR-CJK

SALVADOR v. MORTON

3:18-cv-00023-LC-EMT

SALVADOR v. DEFONTE

3:18-cv-00024-LC-EMT

SALVADOR v. CREWS

3:18-cv-00025-LC-CJK

SALVADOR v. LARRYMORE

3:18-cv-00026-RV-EMT

SALVADOR v. WORTHINGTON

3:18-cv-00027-MCR-CJK

SALVADOR v. TAYLOR

3:18-cv-00028-MCR-EMT

SALVADOR v. THAMES

3:18-cv-00029-LC-CJK

SALVADOR v. HANSON

3:18-cv-00030-LC-CJK

SALVADOR v. BROWNLEE

3:18-cv-00031-RV-EMT

SALVADOR v. MCKENDRICK

3:18-cv-00032-LC-EMT

SALVADOR v. MORGAN

3:18-cv-00033-LC-CJK

SALVADOR v. BLUE

3:18-cv-00034-MCR-CJK

SALVADOR v. KIRKLAND

3:18-cv-00048-LC-EMT

SALVADOR v. HARVEY

Page 3 of 7

3:18-cv-00049-RV-EMT

SALVADOR v. GRIFFITHS

3:18-cv-00050-LC-CJK

SALVADOR v. BLUE

3:18-cv-00051-RV-CJK

SALVADOR v. WALTON

3:18-cv-00052-MCR-EMT

SALVADOR v. TAYLOR

3:18-cv-00053-LC-EMT

SALVADOR v. COLLINS

3:18-cv-00054-MCR-CJK

SALVADOR v. STEPHENS

3:18-cv-00055-LC-CJK

SALVADOR v. RAY

3:18-cv-00056-LC-EMT

SALVADOR v. VELEZ

3:18-cv-00057-MCR-CJK

SALVADOR v. REY

3:18-cv-00058-LC-EMT

SALVADOR v. VELLAFANE

3:18-cv-00059-LC-EMT

SALVADOR v. PETERFIELD

3:18-cv-00060-LC-CJK

SALVADOR v. JONES

3:18-cv-00061-MCR-EMT

SALVADOR v. EMILY

3:18-cv-00062-RV-CJK

SALVADOR v. GRIFFITH

3:18-cv-00063-RV-EMT

SALVADOR v. REED

3:18-cv-00064-MCR-CJK

SALVADOR v. DIAZ

3:18-cv-00065-MCR-CJK

SALVADOR v. WARD

3:18-cv-00066-LC-EMT

SALVADOR v. IMMIGRATION
CUSTOM AND ENFORCEMENT

Page 4 of 7

3:18-cv-00068-LC-EMT

SALVADOR v. BOWEN

3:18-cv-00069-RV-EMT

SALVADOR v. BAKER COUNTY JAIL

3:18-cv-00128-MCR-EMT

SALVADOR v. LIPPMAN

3:18-cv-00131-MCR-CJK

SALVADOR v. BENTON

3:18-cv-00144-RV-EMT

SALVADOR v. WILSON

The magistrate judge in each of the listed actions has entered a Report and
Recommendation wherein it was recommended that the case be transferred to the
Middle District of Florida because the events on which the action was based occurred
solely within the Middle District. It was also noted that the Northern District of
Florida has no apparent relation to the action.
The Report and Recommendation was mailed to Plaintiff at Baker County Jail
in Macclenny, Florida, but was returned to the Court with the notation that Plaintiff
was no longer housed there. Information gathered by the Clerk indicated that
Plaintiff was relocated to the Glade County Detention Center, and the Report and
Recommendation was then sent to Plaintiff at the street address there. However, the
mailing was again returned to the Court marked “Return to Sender” with the notation
that the letter was undeliverable at that address.

Page 5 of 7

For the reasons addressed herein, the Court determines that the cases should
not be transferred to the Middle District of Florida but should be dismissed without
prejudice. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), “[t]he 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 brought.” When venue is improper, the interests of efficiency and fairness
generally make it preferential to transfer the case to a district where venue is proper.
Goldlawr, Inc., v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 467 (1962); World Holdings, LLC v.
Federal Republic of Germany, 2009 WL 10664174 at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 22, 2009)
(citing Davis v. Am. Society of Civil Engineers, 290 F. Supp. 2d 116, 120 (D.D.C.
2003)). Nonetheless, as the statute provides, a court in its sound discretion may
dismiss the case rather than transfer it. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 102 S.Ct. 252,
266 (1981); First of Michigan Corp. v. Bramlet, 141 F.3d 260, 262 (6th Cir. 1998);
Hapaniewski v. City of Chicago Heights, 883 F.2d 576, 578 (7th Cir.1989).
In the cases filed in this Court, Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court apprised
of her change in address as directed by the Court.2 Not having a correct or reliable

2

As per its regular practice, the Court sent Plaintiff a Notice to Pro Se Litigant form that
sets out many procedures and requirements attendant to civil litigation, including the following:
“Throughout this case, you are required to advise the Clerk’s Office in writing of any change in your
mailing address by filing a Notice of Change of Address.”.

Page 6 of 7

address for Plaintiff will only serve to compound the difficulty of effecting a transfer
to the Middle District, not to mention the fact that the Middle District may well
receive a case for which they are unable to locate its primary party. Furthermore, this
problem is significantly compounded by the fact that, at last count, Plaintiff had filed
52 cases in this court, nearly all of which are in the same procedural posture and
would therefore be slated for transfer. It would therefore be a far greater conservation
of judicial resources to dismiss these cases rather than transfer them.
Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to
dismiss Plaintiff’s cases without prejudice. Should Plaintiff remain interested in
continuing to litigate the cases, she should file a new cause of action in the
Jacksonville Division of the Middle District of Florida.
Having considered the foregoing, I have determined that the Report and
Recommendation in each of Plaintiff’s cases should be adopted, but with the
alteration that the cases be dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1.

The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in each of the

cases listed herein is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order, but the
recommendation has been altered as discussed in this Order.

Page 7 of 7

2.

The listed cases are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1406(a).
3.

The clerk of court is directed to file a copy of this Order in each case and

to close the files accordingly.
DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of February 2018.

s/

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE