Franklin v. Jimmy Autry State Prison et al
ORDER TRANSFERRING Plaintiff's 1 Complaint to the Albany Division of the USDC for the Middle District of Gerogia. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 8/8/2017. (ca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:17-cv-92
JIMMY AUTRY STATE PRISON;
WARDEN WALTER BERRY; BOARD OF
PARDONS AND PAROLE; MS. WILSON;
and HOMER BRYSON,
Plaintiff, who is currently housed at Jimmy Autry State Prison in Pelham, Georgia, filed a
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Upon review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, it is
clear Plaintiff contests events allegedly occurring in Mitchell County, Georgia. (Id.)
A district court may raise the issue of defective venue sua sponte. Collins v. Hagel, No.
1:13-CV-2051-WSD, 2015 WL 5691076, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 28, 2015) (citing Kapordelis v.
Danzig, 387 F. App’x 905, 906–07 (11th Cir. 2010) (affirming sua sponte transfer, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), of pro se prisoner’s civil rights action from New York to Georgia); Berry v.
Salter, 179 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1350 (M.D. Ala. 2001); cf. Lipofsky v. New York State Workers
Comp. Bd., 861 F.2d 1257, 1259 (11th Cir. 1988); and Nalls v. Coleman Low Fed. Inst., 440 F.
App’x 704, 706 (11th Cir. 2011)). When venue is improper, a court “shall dismiss, or if it be in
the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district . . . in which it could have been brought.”
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). “The court may transfer the case if (1) the proposed transferee court is one
in which the action ‘could have been brought’ and (2) transfer would be ‘in the interest of
justice.’” Leach v. Peacock, Civil Action No. 2:09cv738-MHT, 2011 WL 1130596, at *4 (M.D.
Ala. Mar. 25, 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)). Trial courts generally have broad discretion in
determining whether to transfer or dismiss a case. Id. (citing England v. ITT Thompson Indus.,
Inc., 856 F.2d 1518, 1520 (11th Cir. 1988)).
This Court is not the proper venue to hear Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) sets forth the applicable venue provisions:
A civil action may be 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.
Plaintiff is housed in a facility within Mitchell County, which is within the Middle District of
Georgia, and he complains about events occurring in that District. 28 U.S.C. § 90(b)(6). He
does not allege that any Defendant resides in this District.
Accordingly, the Court TRANSFERS Plaintiff’s Complaint, and hence, this case, to the
Albany Division of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia in the
interest of justice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to take all action necessary to transfer this
case to the Middle District of Georgia.
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of August, 2017.
R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?