Pierce v. Tool City et al
ORDER AND REASONS. It is ORDERED that the captioned matter be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Case transferred to District of Eastern Texas. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld.(gec)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SCOTT BOATNER PIERCE
CITY OF TOOL POLICE
DEPARTMENT, ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff, Scott Boatner Pierce, a pretrial detainee incarcerated in Texas, filed the instant
pro se and in forma pauperis federal civil rights complaint against the following defendants: The
City of Tool, Texas; the city’s Police Department; Rickye Fiest, the department’s chief; Detective
T. Cantrel; Henderson County, Texas; and the county’s Sheriff’s Department. 1 In this lawsuit,
plaintiff asserts claims for false arrest and false imprisonment arising from his arrest for
unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. 2
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because that statute contains no
specific venue provision, venue is determined pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the general venue
statute. See Jones v. Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453, 458 (N.D. Ga. 1972), aff’d, 480 F. 2d 805 (5th Cir.
1973). That statute provides:
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
The application for pauper status is deferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Tyler Division, for determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The undersigned notes that plaintiff also filed a separate case in this Court which was recently transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Pierce v. Kaufman County District Attorney Office,
Civ. Action No. 16-13830 (E.D. La. Sept. 6, 2016).
(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 the instant case, no defendant is alleged to reside in the Eastern District of Louisiana,
and no part of the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred within this district.
However, all of those events or omissions occurred in Henderson County, Texas, which lies within
the geographical boundaries of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Tyler Division. 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(1).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a), a district in which venue is wrong may
transfer a case to another district or division in which venue is proper, if such transfer is in the
interest of justice. Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1067 (5th Cir. 1999). Because venue is
not proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana but would be proper in the Eastern District of Texas,
the Court finds that it is in the interest of justice and fairness to the parties that this civil action be
transferred to the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, for further consideration.
It is therefore ORDERED that the captioned matter be TRANSFERRED to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this fourth day of October, 2016.
JANIS VAN MEERVELD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?