Boothman v. United States of America

Filing 41

ORDER granting 28 Motion to Transfer Case and denying 37 Motion to Change Venue; denying as moot 31 Motion to Seal and 33 Motion for Extension of Time. This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Georgia. Signed by Senior Judge W. Earl Britt on 6/18/2018. (Stouch, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:17-cv-00486-BR
CRYSTAL BOOTHMAN, Executrix
of the Estate of Kenese Sene,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the motion to transfer filed by defendant United States
of America (DE # 28) and on the cross-motion to transfer filed by plaintiff Crystal Boothman, as
executrix of the estate of Kenese Sene (DE # 37). The motions have been fully briefed and are
ripe for disposition.
I. BACKGROUND
In this action, plaintiff seeks damages from defendant relating to the allegedly negligent
care received by Mr. Sene while incarcerated in a federal correctional institution. (See Compl.,
DE # 1, ¶¶ 2.1, 5.1-5.4.) Plaintiff filed the complaint within her decedent’s residential district—
the Eastern District of Washington. (Id. ¶ 1.1.) Due to the allegations of negligence occurring at
FCI Butner made within the complaint, defendant successfully moved to transfer the case to this
court. (See 9/22/17 Order, DE # 15, at 2; Mem., DE # 29, at 1.)
According to defendant, discovery conducted before filing a responsive pleading with
this court revealed that the potentially negligent conduct transpired at FCI Jesup in Georgia, not
FCI Butner. (Mem., DE # 29, at 1-2, 6-8.) Consequently, defendant filed a second motion to

transfer venue, this time to the Southern District of Georgia, where FCI Jesup is located.
Plaintiff opposes this motion to transfer and filed a cross-motion to transfer the case back to the
Eastern District of Washington.
II. DISCUSSION
The United States district courts have “exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims
against the United States, for money damages . . . for . . . personal injury or death caused by the
negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within
the scope of his office or employment . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The appropriate venue for
such actions is either the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or where the act or omission
complained of occurred. Id. § 1402(b).
The parties agree that venue does not lie in this district. (See Mem., DE # 29, at 5-6;
Mem., DE # 34, at 1, 4.) Presiding courts can cure defective venue by transferring the case to an
appropriate district for resolution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In the interest of justice, a judge
may consider the convenience of parties and witnesses to identify the proper district for transfer.
See id. § 1404(a). United States District Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. did just that when he
transferred this case from the Eastern District of Washington to this district. (See 9/22/17 Order,
DE # 15, at 2.) As such, this court will not revisit his conclusion that venue is more appropriate
in the district where the purported negligent acts occurred. See Christianson v. Colt Indus.
Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 815-16 (1988) (citation omitted) (“Federal courts routinely apply
law-of-the-case principles to transfer decisions of coordinate courts.”). In keeping with that
conclusion, the court will transfer this case to the Southern District of Georgia, the true location
of the alleged negligence.

2 

III. CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion to transfer is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion to transfer is DENIED.
Defendant’s motion to seal (DE # 31) and plaintiff’s motion for enlargement of time (DE # 33)
are DENIED as moot. This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia.
This 18 June 2018.

__________________________________ 

W. Earl Britt
Senior U.S. District Judge

3