Winston v. Butler et al
Filing
9
OPINION & ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 11/22/16. The Court finds that the Defendants have not carried their burden of persuading the Court that the interests of justice and the convenience of the parities and witnesses would be best served by dismissing the action. However, it is readily apparent that venue is lacking in this Court and it is in the interests of justice for this matter to be transferred to the Southern District of Illinois. Therefore, Defendant's Motion for DISMISS 5 is DENIED. Nevertheless, the Clerk is directed to TRANSFER this matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (FDT, ilcd)[Transferred from Illinois Central on 11/22/2016.]
E-FILED
Tuesday, 22 November, 2016 01:18:22 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
VANESSA WINSTON, Special
Administrator of the Estate of Vincent
Britt,
Plaintiff,
v.
KIMBERLY BUTLER, Warden of
Menard Correctional Center,
JOHN DOE, ROBERT ROE, and
MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 16-cv-1220
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss (Doc. 5).
The motion is fully briefed and ready for decision. For the reasons stated below, the
motion is DENIED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1
Plaintiff, Vanessa Winston, is the sister of Vincent Britt (the “Decedent”) and
is the duly appointed administrator of his Estate. At the time of his death, the
Decedent was an inmate at the Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”) located in
Randolph County, Illinois. The Complaint is silent as to the residence of Plaintiff.
Defendants John Doe and Robert Roe are unknown and thus, their residences are
The following facts are taken from the Complaint (Doc. 1) except as otherwise
noted and are assumed to be true for the purpose of adjudicating the motion sub
judice.
1
also unknown. They are employed by Menard. Defendant Butler has provided an
affidavit under the authority of Seventh Circuit case law 2 in which she affirms that
she is a resident of Jackson County, Illinois. Both Randolph County and Jackson
County are in the Southern District of Illinois. This Court lies in the Central District
of Illinois.
The events that give rise to this lawsuit occurred in Randolph County. The suit
is predicated upon the wrongful death of the Decedent. Decedent was a prisoner in
Statesville Correctional Center. He learned that his life was in danger and he secured
a transfer to Pontiac Correctional Center, which is in the Central District of Illinois.
At Pontiac, he learned that he would be transferred to another facility. Ultimately he
was transferred to Menard. On June 11, 2015, the Decedent informed his family that
he was transferred to Menard and that he was not in protective custody housing
despite his and his family’s repeated requests for protective custody. On June 16,
2015, the Decedent hung himself. Plaintiff received a telephone call from Menard
informing her that the Decedent had passed away at 1:15 am that same day.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) allows a defendant to move for
dismissal of a claim for improper venue. Deb v. SIRVA, Inc., 832 F.3d 809. It is the
plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate that venue is proper. Gilbert v. Ledoux, No. 3:14CV-1714-TLS, 2015 WL 5098493, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 31, 2015) citing Grantham v.
Challenge—Cook Bros., Inc., 420 F.2d 1182, 1184 (7th Cir. 1969). “When venue is
Deb v. SIRVA, Inc., 832 F.3d 800, 809-10 (7th Cir. 2016) (“Where one party makes
a bald claim of venue and the other party contradicts it, a district court may look
beyond the pleadings to determine whether the chosen venue is appropriate.”).
2
2
challenged, the court must determine whether the case falls within one of the three
categories set out in [28 U.S.C.] § 1391(b).” Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court
for W. Dist. of Texas, 134 S. Ct. 568, 577 (2013). Section 1391(b) provides in relevant
part that
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.A. § 1391. When the case does not fit within one of these three categories,
venue shall be deemed improper. Atl. Marine Const. Co., 134 S. Ct. at 577. And when
venue is improper, the court shall decide whether to dismiss the case or transfer to a
court where venue would be proper if such a transfer is in the interest of justice. Id.
citing 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
DISCUSSION
I.
Venue in the Central District Of Illinois Is Improper For This Case.
Simply put, nothing in the Complaint discusses events occurring in or people
having any relevant ties to the Central District of Illinois. Moreover—to this Court’s
shock—Plaintiff has failed to even address venue in her response to the Defendants’
motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has provided nothing to indicate any of the Defendants
reside outside the Southern District of Illinois. Defendant Butler has submitted an
affidavit establishing that she resides in the Southern District of Illinois. None of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claims are alleged to have occurred in the
Central District of Illinois. Clearly then, venue is proper in the Southern District of
3
Illinois and the Court must dismiss the suit or transfer it under 28 U.S.C. § 1406.
Since the Defendants clearly work in the Southern District of Illinois and Decedent’s
interaction with Menard’s staff and his death occurred in the Southern District of
Illinois, it stands to reason that the great majority of witnesses and parties are
located in the Southern District of Illinois. Therefore, venue is proper there.
II.
The Court Will Not Dismiss This Lawsuit For Lack Of Venue.
Defendants argue that this suit should be dismissed for lack of venue under 28
U.S.C. § 1391 as opposed to simply being transferred because there are serious legal
deficiencies within the Complaint. The Court does not believe that it would be
prudent to opine on any purported facial deficiencies of the Complaint or the
substantive merits of the claims since the case is not properly before the Court. Even
if the Plaintiff’s claims are deficient, parties are generally allowed one chance to cure
deficiencies in their initial pleadings. See Smith v. Union Pac. R. Co., 474 F. App’x
478, 481 (7th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff is ordinarily entitled to at least one opportunity to
cure the problem with a complaint through amendment of the pleadings.). It would
not be efficient for this Court to opine on the legal sufficiency of the Complaint and
then hand the matter over to another court, which would invariably have to conduct
its own analysis and give its opinion on the same issue. Furthermore, dismissal for
lack of venue is not an adjudication on the merits, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2); Johnson
v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 598 F. App’x 454, 456 (7th Cir. 2015). Thus, Plaintiff would
be free to re-file in the Southern District of Illinois, as the Defendants concede. (See
Doc. 6 at 4). Forcing the Plaintiff through such hoops is inefficient when the Court is
4
empowered to simply transfer the matter so that a proper court can give its opinion
on the sufficiency of the Complaint.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons the Court finds that the Defendants have not carried
their burden of persuading the Court that the interests of justice and the convenience
of the parities and witnesses would be best served by dismissing the action. However,
it is readily apparent that venue is lacking in this Court and it is in the interests of
justice for this matter to be transferred to the Southern District of Illinois. Therefore,
Defendant’s Motion for DISMISS (Doc. 5) is DENIED. Nevertheless, the Clerk is
directed to TRANSFER this matter to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Entered this 22nd day of November, 2016.
s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge
5
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?