Holden v. Winn Correctional Center et al
ORDER AND REASONS: It is therefore ORDERED that the instant matter be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the determination of pauper status is deferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana after transfer of this matter to that court.Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr on 2/24/2017.(my)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DIVERIOUS HOLDEN SR.
WINN CORRECTIONAL CENTER
ORDER AND REASONS
Pro se plaintiff, Diverious Holden Sr., is an inmate currently incarcerated in the
Allen Correctional Center in Kinder, Louisiana. He filed the captioned lawsuit in forma
pauperis1 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Warden Keith Deville, the
Winn Correctional Center, Bob Dietier III and the Winn Correctional Center Medical
Department. Holden alleges that defendants failed to provide him with adequate medical
care for a skin condition while he was incarcerated in the Winn Correctional Center.
Record Doc. No. 1, Complaint, at pp. 3-4, ¶ IV. Plaintiff seeks monetary compensation
and removal of Dietier from his position. Record Doc. No. 1, Complaint, at p. 4, ¶ V.
Because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contains no specific venue provision, venue is
determined under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, also known as the general venue statute. Jones v.
Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453 (N.D. Ga. 1972), aff’d, 480 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1973). Section
1391(b) provides in pertinent part:
The court by this order has instructed the Clerk of Court to file this complaint without
prepayment of a filing fee. Ruling on the application for pauper status is deferred to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
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 (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. §§ 1406(a) and 1404(a) allow transfer of a case from one district to
another district or division in which venue is proper, for the convenience of parties and
witnesses and in the interest of justice. For example, a magistrate judge’s transfer of a
prisoner’s case to the district in which his claims allegedly arose has been held proper by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d
1066, 1067 (5th Cir. 1999).
The events forming the factual basis of plaintiff’s claims allegedly occurred in the
Winn Correctional Center in Winn Parish. The defendants are employed at that facility
in Winn Parish, which is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana. 28 U.S.C. § 98(c). No defendant is alleged
to reside in or to be located within the Eastern District of Louisiana. Venue is not proper
in the Eastern District. On the other hand, venue is proper in the Western District of
Louisiana and the interests of justice dictate that this case be transferred, rather than
being dismissed on grounds of improper venue. A magistrate judge is authorized to
transfer to another district a complaint asserting claims based upon events occurring in
that district. Balawajder, 160 F.3d at 1067.
It is therefore ORDERED that the instant matter be TRANSFERRED to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the determination of pauper status is deferred
to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana after transfer of
this matter to that court.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this __________ day of February, 2017.
JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.
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?