Speyrer et al v. Williams et al

Filing 23

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that this case be transferred to the Monroe Division of the Western District of Louisiana. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 6/23/2020. (crt,Williams, L)

Case 3:19-cv-01282-TAD-KLH Document 23 Filed 06/23/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 103

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
TERI SPEYRER OBO
GEOFFREY SPEYRER

CASE NO. 6:19-CV-01282

VERSUS

JUDGE JUNEAU

WYDETTE WILLIAMS ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

MEMORANDUM RULING
This Court ordered Plaintiff, Teri Speyrer, to file a memorandum explaining
why this matter should not be transferred to the Monroe Division of this Court. (Rec.
Doc. 22). Plaintiff did not comply. For the reasons discussed below, this suit should
be transferred to the Monroe Division of the Western District of Louisiana.
Factual Background
In October 2018, Geoffrey Speyrer was an inmate at Riverbend Detention
Center (“RDC”) in Lake Providence, Louisiana. (Rec. Doc. 1, ¶10). At that time,
Wydette Williams was the Sheriff of East Carroll Parish and RDC’s policy maker.
(Rec. Doc. 1, ¶5). Deputy Khalil Clay was an employee of the East Carroll Parish
Sheriff stationed at RDC. (Rec. Doc. 1, ¶6).
Teri Speyrer originally filed suit on behalf of Geoffrey Speyrer in this Court
seeking money damages for injuries Mr. Speyrer suffered due to the alleged actions
of Mr. Williams and Deputy Clay. (Rec. Doc. 1). In the Complaint, Plaintiff stated
claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth

Case 3:19-cv-01282-TAD-KLH Document 23 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 104

Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the laws of Louisiana. (Rec.
Doc. 1). Plaintiff claimed venue lies in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
because the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district. (Rec.
Doc. 1, ¶2).
This Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a memorandum explaining why the case
should not be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Rec. Doc. 22). Plaintiff
failed to file such a memorandum.
Applicable Law
Plaintiff claimed venue for this lawsuit lies in the Western District of
Louisiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), which allows a civil action to be brought
in the judicial district where the events giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b)(2). A federal court may transfer a civil action to another division where
the suit could have been brought “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in
the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In determining the convenience of the
transferee venue, the Court must consider the Gilbert factors. In re Radmax, Ltd.,
720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing In re Volkswagen of Am, Inc., 545 F.3d
304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). Therefore, the case may be transferred to the
Monroe Division if venue is proper there and if the Gilbert factors weigh in favor of
the change of venue.

2

Case 3:19-cv-01282-TAD-KLH Document 23 Filed 06/23/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 105

Whether Venue is proper in the Monroe Division of the Western District
The Court must first determine whether venue lies in the Monroe Division of
the Western District of Louisiana. Venue lies in “a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
All the alleged mistreatment of Plaintiff occurred at RDC. (Rec. Doc. 1). RDC
is in East Carroll Parish, which is in the Western District of Louisiana. (Rec. Doc.
1). Further, the Monroe division encompasses RDC. (Rec. Doc. 22). Therefore,
venue is proper in the Monroe Division of the Western District.
Whether Transferee Venue is Clearly More Convenient
Having determined that venue is proper in the Monroe Division, the Court
must weigh the Gilbert factors to determine if the transferee venue “is clearly more
convenient.” Radmax, 720 F.3d at 288. First, the Court must consider “the relative
ease of access to sources of proof.” Id. The alleged mistreatment occurred at RDC,
so sources of proof are likely to be at or near RDC. (Rec. Doc. 1). Because RDC is
closer to Monroe than to Lafayette, the proof is relatively more easily accessible in
Monroe. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
Second, the Court considers “the availability of compulsory process to secure
the attendance of witnesses.” Radmax, 720 F.3d at 288. Both courts’ subpoena power
extends to all likely witnesses. Therefore, this factor is neutral.
3

Case 3:19-cv-01282-TAD-KLH Document 23 Filed 06/23/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 106

Third, the Court weighs “the cost of attendance for willing witnesses.” Id. If
the distance between the existing venue for trial and the venue proposed under §
1404(a) is greater than 100 miles, “the factor of inconvenience to witnesses increases
in direct relationship to the additional distance to be traveled.” Id. at 288-89. (quoting
In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)). Monroe
is almost 200 miles from Lafayette, and Monroe is closer to RDC. The witnesses of
the alleged mistreatment are employees and inmates at RDC. (Rec. Doc. 1).
Therefore, Monroe is more convenient for the witnesses, and this factor weighs in
favor of transfer.
Fourth, the Court must consider “all other practical problems that make trial
of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Radmax, 720 F.3d at 288. The only
foreseeable practical problem with the transfer is a delay in the litigation process.
However, the Fifth Circuit asserted that “garden-variety delay[s] associated with
transfer” are not to be considered when ruling on a § 1404(a) motion to transfer
because such delays “would militate against transfer in every case.” Id. at 289.
Therefore, no significant practical problems weigh on this transfer, so this factor is
neutral.
Fifth, the Court considers “the administrative difficulties flowing from court
congestion.” Id. at 288. This Court is unaware of any administrative difficulties that
would occur due to the transfer or retention of this case. Thus, this factor is neutral.
4

Case 3:19-cv-01282-TAD-KLH Document 23 Filed 06/23/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 107

Sixth, the Court contemplates “the local interest in having localized interests
decided at home.” Id. RDC is within the Monroe Division of this Court. (Rec. Doc.
22). Thus, the Monroe Division has more of a local interest in this case than the
Lafayette Division. So, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
Seventh, the Court must consider “the familiarity of the forum with the law
that will govern the case.” Radmax, 720 F.3d at 288. Both this Court and the Monroe
Division are in the Western District of Louisiana, so they are familiar with the same
applicable laws. Both have an obligation to analyze Plaintiff’s claims under 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, and the laws of Louisiana. This uniform application of
and familiarity with the relevant federal and state laws ensures that Plaintiff will not
lose the opportunity to seek redress for his claims. Therefore, this factor is neutral.
Finally, the Court considers “the avoidance of unnecessary problems of
conflict of laws [or in] the application of foreign law.” Id. As reasoned above, both
this Court and the Monroe Division would apply the same laws to this case. Thus,
transfer presents no conflict of law. Also, because both courts are within the Western
District of Louisiana, transfer does not require the application of foreign law. Thus,
this factor is neutral.

5

Case 3:19-cv-01282-TAD-KLH Document 23 Filed 06/23/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 108

Five of the factors are neutral and three weigh in favor of transfer. Weighing
these factors, the Monroe Division is clearly more convenient than the Lafayette
Division. This convenience warrants the transfer of this case to the Monroe Division.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed herein, IT IS ORDERED that this case be
transferred to the Monroe Division of the Western District of Louisiana.
THUS DONE in Chambers, Lafayette, Louisiana on this 23rd day of June,
2020.
______________________________
PATRICK J. HANNA

6