Tellis et al v. LeBlanc et al

Filing 40

RULING dismissing 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; granting 18 Motion to Transfer Case Case transferred to District of Western District of Louisiana. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 04/19/2018. (ELW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ANTHONY TELLIS, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

18-161-SDD-RLB

JAMES M. LEBLANC, ET AL.
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Transfer Venue1 filed by
Defendants, James M. LeBlanc, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety
and Corrections (“Secretary LeBlanc”), Jerry Goodwin (“Warden Goodwin”), Warden of
David Wade Correction Center, Col. Lonnie Nail, Doctor Gregory Seal, Deborah Dauzat
(“Asst. Warden Dauzat”), Assistant Warden of David Wade Correction Center, Aerial
Robinson, Johnie Adkins, and Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
(“DOC”) (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiffs, Anthony Tellis (“Tellis”), Bruce Charles
(“Charles”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
prisoners at David Wade Correctional Center (“the putative class”), have filed an
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion.2 For the following reasons, the Court finds that the
motion should be granted, and this action shall be transferred to the Shreveport Division
of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (“the Western
District”).

1
2

Rec. Doc. 18.
Rec. Doc. 29.

45027 
Page 1 of 8 

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND3
The named Plaintiffs and the putative class are all inmates who have been or are

currently incarcerated at David Wade Correctional Center (“WADE”). WADE is located in
Homer, Louisiana, which is situated in the Western District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs filed
this action in the Middle District of Louisiana alleging that WADE’s policies and practices
applicable to inmates result in violations of the Eighth Amendment, First Amendment,
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act,4 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.5
In particular, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for the alleged extreme
conditions and practices at WADE which create and/or exacerbate mental illness of
inmates incarcerated at WADE.
The extreme conditions complained of include policies on extended lockdown, lack
of mental health care, use of “Policy 34”,6 conditions of confinement, policies on suicide
watch, and other allegedly egregious acts or omissions. Defendants bring the current
Motion to transfer the case to the Western District of Louisiana arguing it is clearly the
more convenient venue. In support, Defendants aver that (1) the majority, if not all of the
parties are located in the Western District, (2) the Western District is the situs of all the
material facts set forth in the complaint, (3) the Western District is the location of all the
material evidence and witnesses, and (4) enforcement of the relief sought by Plaintiffs
would occur exclusively in the Wester District.

3

The facts are derived from the Petition for Damages (Rec. Doc. 1) and the Parties’ Memoranda.
42 U.S.C. § 12131-12134.
5
29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.
6
Plaintiffs allege that Policy 34 is deployed at staff discretion and permits staff to strip a prisoner of all
belongings, including his mattress, in response to a perceived rule violation with no due process protections
or hearings. Rec. Doc. 1, p. 11.
4

45027 
Page 2 of 8 

II.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Standard for Venue Transfer
A district court has the authority to transfer a case in the interest of justice to

another district in which the action might have been brought, regardless of whether venue
exists in the original forum.7 If venue is proper in the original forum, the transfer may be
made pursuant to Section 1404(a), which provides that, “[f]or 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.”
It is undisputed that the Middle and Western Districts of Louisiana are districts in
which this action initially could have been brought.8 Therefore, the Court will consider
whether this action should be transferred to another judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a).
The underlying premise of Section 1404(a) is that courts should prevent plaintiffs
from abusing their privilege under Section 1391 by subjecting defendants to venues that
are inconvenient under the terms of Section 1404(a).9 “[W]hile a plaintiff has the privilege
of filing his claims in any judicial division appropriate under the general venue statute, §
1404(a) tempers the effects of the exercise of this privilege.”10 In determining whether to
grant a transfer, the moving party bears the burden of showing “good cause,” which the
Fifth Circuit explained is satisfied when “the movant demonstrates that the transferee
venue is clearly more convenient.”11

7

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and § 1406(a).
See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
9
In re Volkswagen of America, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 313 (5th Cir. 2008).
10
Id.
11
Id.
8

45027 
Page 3 of 8 

The Fifth Circuit has adopted private and public interest factors for the
determination of whether a Section 1404(a) venue transfer is for the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and is in the interest of justice.12 The private interest factors are:
“(1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing
witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious
and inexpensive.”13 The public interest factors are: “(1) the administrative difficulties
flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided
at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the
avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in] the application of foreign
law.”14
“[I]t is clear under Fifth Circuit precedent that the plaintiff's choice of forum is clearly
a factor to be considered but in and of itself it is neither conclusive nor determinative.
Generally, a plaintiff's choice of forum is given great deference; however, a plaintiff's
choice of forum is given less deference when the plaintiff is not a resident of his choice of
forum and when the operative facts of a case occurred in a different forum.”15
B. Analysis of Private Interest Factors
Having reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties, the Court finds that
transfer of this action to the Western District of Louisiana furthers the convenience of the

12

Id.
In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004)(citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235,
241 n. 6, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981)).
14
Id.
15
Parker v. PNK (Lake Charles) LLC, No. CV 17-357-JJB-RLB, 2017 WL 5077704, at *2 (M.D. La. Oct. 12,
2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 17-357-JJB-RLB, 2017 WL 5077894 (M.D. La. Nov. 3,
2017) (internal quotations omitted).
13

45027 
Page 4 of 8 

parties and the interests of justice. First, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of
witnesses and evidence are located in the Western District. Both of the named Plaintiffs
and the putative class members are incarcerated or were incarcerated at WADE. All but
two of the Defendants, Secretary LeBlanc and the DOC, are located in or around the city
of Homer, Louisiana. The Complaint alleges that Defendants Dr. Gregory Seal, Steve
Hayden, Aerial Robinson, and Johnie Adkins, were all directly involved with the mental
health care provided to the Plaintiffs and putative class members. All of these Defendants
reside in or near Homer. These Defendants will be essential to this matter in determining
whether adequate mental health care was provided to Plaintiffs and the putative class
members. Additionally, all of the policies and procedures at issue were promulgated at
WADE and carried out by WADE staff. The Complaint specifically alleges that
Defendants, Warden Goodwin, Assistant Warden Dauzat, and Colonel Nail personally
implement and carry out the policies at WADE which allegedly violate Plaintiffs’ rights. All
of these Defendants reside in or near Homer. In short, WADE is the situs of all material
facts and evidence necessary to determine whether those policies and conditions violate
the rights of the named Plaintiffs and putative class members.
In opposing the transfer, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants fail to recognize the
significance of the alleged inaction by Secretary Leblanc and the DOC. However, there
is no dispute that Plaintiffs do not challenge any policy of the DOC itself, and the only
allegation against the Secretary and the DOC is that they are ultimately responsible for
the actions of WADE and its staff. Indeed, Plaintiffs concede that WADE even fails to
follow DOC policies regarding intake procedures and suicide watch.16 Finally, Plaintiffs’

16

Rec. Doc. 29-1, pp. 10-11.

45027 
Page 5 of 8 

argument that there will be witnesses and evidence from Elayn Hunt Medical Center and
Louisiana State Penitentiary, which are both located in the Middle District of Louisiana,
does not outweigh the substantial amount of evidence and witnesses present in the
Western District. Therefore, the first and fourth private interest factors weight heavily in
favor of transfer to the Western District of Louisiana.
The second and third private interest factors also weigh in favor of transfer to the
Western District considering the majority of witnesses and evidence located therein.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c), the subpoena power of the court only
extends to non-parties “within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or
regularly transacts business in person…” WADE is approximately 245 miles from the
Middle District of Louisiana. In contrast, WADE is approximately 62.1 miles from the
Shreveport Division of the Western District of Louisiana. Because the majority of
witnesses are located in and near WADE, the Court finds that the availability of the
compulsory process of the Western District and the cost of attendance for willing
witnesses weighs in favor of transfer to the Western District.
C. Analysis of the Public Interest Factors
Plaintiffs argue that the first public interest factor, the administrative difficulties
flowing from court congestion, weighs in favor of keeping the litigation in the Middle
District because there are presently four judicial vacancies in the Western District.
However, Defendants have provided the Court with statistics available on the U.S. courts
website that the Western District has a shorter median time from filing to trial than the
Middle District.17 Defendants also cite statistics that show that both districts had similar

17

Rec. Doc. 18-1, p. 7. (citing U.S. District Courts – Combined Civil and Criminal Federal Court management

45027 
Page 6 of 8 

amounts of filings in 2017.18 As such, the Court finds that the administrative realities
attendant to court congestion are the same for both the Middle and Western District
courts.
The Court finds that the second public interest factor, the local interest in having
localized interests decided at home, weighs heavily in favor of transfer. As stated above,
Homer, Louisiana is the location where the alleged acts giving rise to the claims occurred.
Any relief requested by Plaintiffs will be carried out at WADE. Plaintiffs argue that venue
in the Middle District is preferred because the failures of Secretary Leblanc and the DOC
are actionable omissions currently taking place in the Middle District. However, the
Complaint does not allege any violation of rights arising out of the DOC policies.
Moreover, the Complaint only alleges violations occurring at WADE and no other facility
under the operation of the DOC. Therefore, the Court finds that the only policies and
practices that will be affected by adjudication of these issues will be WADE policies and
procedures. As such, the Western District has far greater interest in deciding whether
WADE’s policies and practices result in alleged violations of prisoner’s constitutional
rights than that of the Middle District.
The third and fourth public interest factors, the familiarity of the forum with the law
that will govern the case and the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws
[or in] the application of foreign law, are neutral in the determination of whether to transfer
venue. Both the Middle and Western Districts are equally skilled and equipped to
adjudicate the constitutional violations complained of and there are no conflicts of law or

Statistics).
18
Id.

45027 
Page 7 of 8 

application of foreign law present in this litigation.
III.

CONCLUSION
It is evident that the Western District of Louisiana is a more convenient forum for

the adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims. The Middle District has little connection to the facts
of this case but for Secretary Leblanc and the DOC having ultimate responsibility for the
violations alleged in the Complaint. Rather, the Western District of Louisiana is the situs
of all material acts and events giving rise to this litigation. Further, the foregoing private
and public interest factors as applied to this case show that the Western District of
Louisiana is clearly a more appropriate forum than the Middle District. Accordingly, the
Court finds that it is in the interest of justice that this civil action be transferred to the
Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division for further consideration. Accordingly,
the Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue19 is GRANTED, and this case shall be
transferred to the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport division.
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order20 is
DISMISSED without prejudice subject to refiling in the Western District of Louisiana.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on April 19, 2018. 

S

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

19
20

Rec. Doc. No. 18.
Rec. Doc. 3.

45027 
Page 8 of 8