Brown v. Myers

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Denying 37 Motion to Transfer Case. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 1/14/2019. (km4s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
LANIER BROWN, # 433-019,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

OFFICER MATTHEW MYERS, et al.

*

Defendants.

Civil Action No. PX-16-3995

*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is a motion filed by Defendants Baltimore County, Maryland,
Baltimore County Police Department Chief Terrence Sheridan, and Officers Matthew Myers,
Tracy Ather, Derek Clark, Robert Estes, David Garner, Joseph Peach, Gene Pryor, and Steven
Inge (collectively, “Defendants”) to “transfer” this case from the Southern Division of the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland to the Northern Division.

ECF No. 37.

Plaintiff Lanier Brown opposes the motion. ECF No. 38. The Court now rules because no
hearing is necessary. D. Md. Loc. R. 105.6. For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion is
DENIED.
Defendants move under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a), arguing that the “transfer is
justified for the convenience of parties and witnesses in the interest of justice.” ECF No. 37 at 1.
However, contrary to Defendants’ position, “[t]here is no ‘right’ to assignment within a specific
division.” Alabakis v. Iridium Holdings, LLC, No. DKC 2007-2032, 2007 WL 3245060, at *1
(D. Md. Nov. 1, 2007). Rather, jurisdiction and venue concern questions of case assignment as
between districts, not between divisions within one district. Id. (noting that the language in 28
U.S.C. § 1406 (a) referring to the “wrong division” is “vestigial and meaningless”); see also 14D
Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3809 (4th ed. 2018).
1

Thus, “trial courts should entertain Section 1404(a) motions for intra-district change of venue
with caution, and should not grant the requested relief unless the balancing of convenience and
public interest factors results in a firm conclusion that the proposed new venue is decidedly more
convenient and in the interest of justice.” Alabakis, 2007 WL 3245060, at *1.
Defendants’ only argument for transfer is that they, as well as witnesses, live closer to the
Baltimore federal courthouse than the Greenbelt courthouse. ECF No. 37-2. Plaintiff responds
that distance alone does not speak to “convenience,” and instead asks the Court to consider
“travel time.” The Court need not resolve the parties’ time-versus-distance debate, because even
under the worst of commuting circumstances for Defendants, the proffered distances to the
Greenbelt courthouse are a far cry from “major inconvenience” warranting reassignment to the
Northern Division.
The Court notes that the matter has been pending for two years. This Court is familiar
with the case, has ruled on substantive motions, and views with some skepticism the notion that
Defendants believe transfer is warranted now because if the case proceeds to trial, Defendants
and certain witnesses may have a longer commute than they would if trial were in Baltimore.
Defendants’ contention certainly does not justify transfer to a Baltimore judge (who would be
unfamiliar with this case) to avoid Defendants possibly one day traveling a little farther than they
would otherwise prefer.

Indeed, Defendants’ claimed inconvenience of traveling the I-95

corridor, should this case proceed to trial, is shared by many people who make the same or
longer commute – year-round – just to make ends meet.
Accordingly, it is this 14th day of January 2019, by the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland, hereby ordered that Defendants’ motion to transfer division is

2

DENIED. The Clerk SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the
parties.

_____________/S/______________
Paula Xinis
United States District Judge

3