Revis v. Davis
Filing
106
ORDER denying Plaintiff Lawrence C. Revis Jr.'s 105 Motion to transfer venue and examine jurors, but his motion to submit voir dire questions will be GRANTED. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file any additional requested voir dire questions within 10 days of today's Order. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 5/17/2017. (csr)
Sti tllie tKmteli ^toteiee l^iKtdct Court
tor t|ie ^oitttiem IBiotrtrt ot 4leorsio
li^opcrooo Sitbioton
LAWRENCE C.
REVIS,
JR.,
Plaintiff,
No.
V.
5:14-CV-88
T&A FARMS, TIMOTHY DALE DAVIS,
ALPHINE DAVIS, and STAGEY
DINWIDDIE,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff
Lawrence
venue and examine
C.
Revis,
Jr.'s
motion
jurors will be DENIED,
to
transfer
but his motion to
submit voir dire questions will be GRANTED.
Dkt. No. 105.
Background
Plaintiff,
Smallwood
are
Sheila
suing
Smallwood,
Defendants,
and
her
their
former
alleging race discrimination and retaliation.
{S.D.
Ga.),
5:14-CV-87
(S.D.
Ga.),
husband
employers,
Nos. 5:14-CV-86
5:14-CV-88
Their suits are being litigated in the
John
(S.D.
Ga.).
Southern District of
Georgia's Waycross Division.
John Smallwood's trial took place there on April 24-26,
2017.
A0 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
Dkt.
Nos.
106-08,
No.
5:14-CV-87
(S.D.
Ga.).
Of the
fourteen impaneled jurors,
four were African-American.
One
was excused for cause with the consent of both parties.
were stricken by Defendants.
(S.D.
Ga.).
Dkt.
No. 113, No. 5:14-CV-87
One was reinstated following John Smallwood's
successful challenge under Batson v.
(1986).
Kentucky,
476 U.S.
Dkt. Nos. 106, 113, No. 5:14-CV-87 (S.D. Ga.).
jury unanimously
liable.
reached a
verdict
finding
Dkt. No. 117, No. 5:14-CV-87
Plaintiff's trial
104.
Three
is
set
for
Defendants
79
The
not
(S.D. Ga.).
July 12,
2017.
Dkt.
No.
On May 15, 2017, his attorneys moved to transfer venue,
examine jurors, and modify voir dire questions.
Dkt. No. 105.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Transfer of Venue
"For
the
convenience
of parties
and witnesses,
in
the
interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil
action to any other district or division where it might have
been brought . . . ."
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
This decision is
discretionary.
Ross v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 980 F.2d 648,
654
1993).
(11th Cir.
The party seeking transfer of venue
bears the burden of "establish[ing]
is more
convenient."
(11th Cir. 1989)
In
re
(per curiam).
Ricoh
that the suggested forum
Corp.,
870
Osqood v.
573
The court must first determine
whether the action could have been brought
forum.
F.2d 570,
Discount Auto
Parts,
LLC,
in the
981
F.
suggested
Supp.
2d
1259,
1263
(S.D.
convenience
witnesses;
Spot,
19,
of
and
Inc.,
Jan.
Fla.
the
(3)
No.
]
Then,
parties;
(2)
it must weigh 'MD
the
convenience
the interest of justice."
CV 411-096,
2012)
Plaintiff [
2013).
2012
(citation
WL
170154,
omitted).
of
Greely v.
at
*2
''MT]he
the
the
Lazer
(S.D.
fact
Ga.
that
requested the transfer can be considered as one
factor in favor of allowing a change of venue."
Id. at *3.
Examining Witnesses
^'As
for
.
.
.
attorneys
question the venire members,
about
how
not
being
including
counsel submit questions in writing."
831
(11th Cir.
to
directly
a district court has discretion
to conduct voir dire,
643 F.3d 807,
allowed
whether
to
have
United States v. Hill,
2011).
Voir Dire Questions
The court may permit the parties or their attorneys
to examine prospective jurors or may itself do so.
If the court examines the jurors, it must permit the
parties or their attorneys to make any further
inquiry it considers proper, or must itself ask any
of their additional questions it considers proper.
Fed.
in
R.
Civ.
selecting
P.
47(a).
voir
dire
District courts
questions,
^'subject
demands of fairness."
United States v.
2017 WL 1208403,
(11th Cir. Apr.
Voir
dire
^^need
at *9
only
provide
have wide discretion
to
the
essential
Bishop,
No.
15-15406,
3,
2017)
reasonable
(per curiam).
assurance
that
prejudice will be discovered if present."
Hill,
United States v.
643 F.Sd 807, 836 (llth Cir. 2011).
DISCUSSION
This
case
Plaintiff s
will
not
attorneys
be
will
examine venire members.
transferred
not
be
to
another
permitted
to
venue.
directly
They will be allowed to submit voir
dire questions.
Plaintiff
has
not
carried
propriety of transfer.
not
come
close
to
his
burden
of
showing
the
To be as gentle as possible, he has
doing
so.
A transfer
would
not
be
convenient to the parties or witnesses, nor would it further
the
interests
knowledge,
of
the
justice.
parties,
To
the
witnesses,
best
and
of
the
evidence
Court's
are
all
located within the Waycross Division's territory.
Plaintiff alleges that justice demands transfer because
of two facts he brings forth regarding John Smallwood's trial.
Plaintiff
Caucasian.
Americans
first
complains
In
Waycross,
than
there
are
. . . ."
three
least
reasons.
^Mt]he
alone,
jury was
there
Caucasian
Dkt. No. 105 at 5.
at
that
in
are
almost
more
95%
African-
population
[sic]
This point is not convincing for
First,
of
the
fourteen
potential
jurors empaneled for final questioning and strikes, 29% were
African-American
(four
out
of
fourteen).
A mutually agreed
upon excusal for cause and two of Defendants' strikes are what
reduced that number.
Second,
Plaintiff's motion confuses the
City of Waycross with the Waycross Division of the Southern
District
of
Smallwood,
Georgia.
True,
as
was
the
case
with
John
Plaintiff's trial will take place in a courthouse
located within the City of Waycross; however, the jurors will
be
called
located,
not
but
28 U.S.C.
§
only
also
from
from
Ware
County,
six
Any
90(c)(4).
other
contention
where
Waycross
surrounding
that
is
counties.
the. racial
composition of a single jury must mirror that of a single city
in a seven-county division is simply wrong.
obviously,
it would be
Finally, and most
fantastically unjust and illegal
to
transfer this case in an effort to change the jury's racial
makeup.
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 85-86 (1986)
(^'[T]he
defendant [has] the right to be tried by a jury whose members
are
selected
Equal
pursuant
Protection
[government]
Clause
to
nondiscriminatory
guarantees
the
criteria.
defendant
that
The
the
will not exclude members of his race from the
jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption
that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve
as jurors." (internal citations and footnote omitted)).
Plaintiff's second contention is equally unavailing,
even more puzzling.
yet
He alleges that ^^the jury pool included
prospective jury members that knew the defendants personally.
.
.
.
This is too coincidental that in a
city populated with
more African-Americans
surrounding cities)
that
knew the
appears
to
(and selecting prospective jurors from
that the pool would include
defendants."
posit
Dkt.
that members
No.
of
105 at
one
individuals
5-6.
race
Plaintiff
should be more
socially isolated as a result of a municipality neighboring
their
home
being
another race.
composed
of
a
majority
of
citizens
from
Such a position is without merit.
Plaintiff's
effort
to
transfer
this
case
boils
down
to
his sense that John Smallwood should have had more African-
American jurors for his trial.
He has presented no evidence
of an improper selection process, nor of race influencing the
jury's decision.
The Court cannot transfer this case across
the state to tip the scales toward a different jury racial
makeup.
Plaintiff's request that this case be transferred is
DENIED.
As
for
Plaintiff's
request
permitted to conduct voir dire,
Court's discretion.
(11th Cir. 2011).
that
his
attorneys
this matter is within the
United States v. Hill, 643 F.Sd 807, 831
Plaintiff has presented no reason why this
Court is incapable of conducting adequate voir dire.
request is DENIED.
be
This
However, the Court will discretionarily
GRANT Plaintiff's motion to file additional proposed voir dire
questions.
CONCLUSION
For
these
reasons.
Plaintiff's
Motion
to
Transfer Venue
and to Modify Jury Questions and to Examine Jurors,
105,
is DENIED
in part and GRANTED
in part.
dkt.
Plaintiff
no.
is
DIRECTED to file any additional requested voir dire questions
within 10 days of today's Order.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of May,
2017.
LISA GODBEY WOOD,
UNITED STATES
SOUTHERN
A0 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
DISTRICT JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT
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?