Briggs v. Brown et al
Filing
4
ORDER transferring case to USDC-GA-N, Atlanta Division. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 8/19/13. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(bsw) [Transferred from North Carolina Western on 8/20/2013.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:13-cv-403-GCM
JACQUELYN R. BRIGGS,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
T. BROWN, Officer,
)
CITY OF DEKALB,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion. For the reasons that follow, this
action will be transferred to the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.
On July 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 raising claims
that her civil rights were violated by the defendants during an apparent wrongful arrest and
detention in the City of DeKalb in the State of Georgia.1 According to the complaint, Plaintiff is
a citizen and resident of Union County, Monroe, North Carolina, which is within the Western
District of North Carolina. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant T. Brown is a police officer employed
by Defendant City of DeKalb. The Court notes that all of the allegations which are set forth in
the complaint are concerned with actions or omissions that Plaintiff contends took place
exclusively within DeKalb at an undeclared time.
After considering Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and conducting an
1
The Court notes that there does not appear to be a city of DeKalb in Georgia. There is a DeKalb County in Georgia
which is within the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.
1
initial review, the Court found that venue appeared to lie in the Northern District of Georgia as
the alleged facts giving rise to the complaint occurred within that district. On July 30, 2013, the
Court entered an Order providing Plaintiff with an opportunity to explain why she contends
venue is proper within the Western District. (Doc. No. 3: Order). The Court noted that before
transferring a case on the basis of venue, the Plaintiff should be provided an opportunity to
address the merits of such a decision. See Feller v. Brock, 802 F.2d 722, 729 n.7 (4th Cir. 1986)
(citing 15 C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3844 at 329-30
(1986)); accord Caldwell v. Palmetto State Sav. Bank of S.C., 811 F.2d 916, 919 (5th Cir. 1987)
(discussing sua sponte transfer of a case). Plaintiff was ordered to file her response to the Court’s
July 29th Order by August 9, 2013, and to date, no such response has been filed.
Federal law provides that the district court may transfer an action “[f]or the convenience
of the 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). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (providing for
transfer of venue on the court’s own motion). As noted, it appears that venue is proper within the
Northern District of Georgia because all of the allegations in the complaint concern the purported
wrongful arrest and detention of the Plaintiff in that district. For the foregoing reasons, the Court
finds that this matter should be transferred to the Northern District of Georgia for further
proceedings.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that venue is proper in the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court shall transfer this case to the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 19, 2013
3
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?