Sulton v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc et al

Filing 5

ORDER: This action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for all further proceedings; see attached order for details. The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the electronic record of this case to the clerk of the transferee court and to close this case on the Court's electronic docket. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 1/10/2012. (jhs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHARLES
SULTON,
IDOC # A93755,

JR., )
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
) CASE NO. 12-112-GPM
)
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
Plaintiff Charles Sulton, Jr., a prisoner in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections who currently is incarcerated in the Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action
pro se purportedly pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1346, 2671 et seq. In general,
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.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In this instance, the only applicable provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) is
subsection (2), providing for venue in the 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. A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Sulton’s claims in
Page 1 of 2

this case occurred in the area of Chicago, Illinois, which is within the jurisdiction of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. See 28 U.S.C. § 93(a)(1). Also, this
suit concerns real property located in the Northern District of Illinois, and it appears that most of the
Defendants named by Sulton, including various corporations and the Chicago Legal Clinic, can be
found in that district. The court concludes therefore that venue over this proceeding properly lies
in the Northern District of Illinois, and that it is in the interests of justice that this cause be
transferred there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Accordingly, pursuant to Section 1391(b) and
Section 1404(a), this action is TRANSFERRED on the Court’s own motion to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. All pending motions in this case, including
Sulton’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) and Sulton’s motion for
appointment of counsel (Doc. 3), are carried with the case, and shall be resolved in the transferee
court. No summons shall issue in this action unless so directed by the transferee court.
The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the electronic record of this case to the Clerk of Court for
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and to close the case on this
Court’s electronic docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 10, 2012
/s/ G. Patrick Murphy
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2