McMann v. Central Falls Detention Facility Corporation

Filing 9

Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. This case to be transferred to the District of Rhode Island. (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
PAUL J. McMANN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRAL FALLS DETENTION FACILITY
CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 13-10264-WGY

ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon a sua sponte review of
the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (screening).

Plaintiff Paul

McMann, a resident of Weston, Massachusetts, is a pre-trial
detainee1 now incarcerated at the Donald W. Wyatt Detention
Facility in Central Falls, Rhode Island.

He filed a verified

class action complaint against the Central Falls Detention
Facility Corporation (the “CFDFC”) as well as unknown employees
of the CFDFC whom he hopes to identify through discovery.
Docket No. 1.

See

McMann brings this action on behalf of himself and

a class of inmates held at the CFDFC.

Id. at ¶ 3.

He alleges

that the defendant violated plaintiff’s “First Amendment rights
to research media contact information through the internet and to
write the media through email.”

Id. at ¶ 1.

McMann pleads

federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to both diversity of
citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the presence of a federal

1

United States v. McMann, C.R. No. 10-10387-RWZ (sentencing
scheduled for Sept. 18, 2013).

question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Id. at ¶ 5.

In the absence of any allegation to the contrary, the Court
will presume that plaintiff's Massachusetts domicile remains his
domicile during the period of his detention in Rhode Island.
Even so, this Court finds that venue does not lie within the
District of Massachusetts.

Venue exists in

(1) a judicial district where 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 (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).
The proper district in all three scenarios outlined in
Section 1391(b) is the District of Rhode Island.

First, the only

identified defendant is located in Rhode Island; McMann’s
residence is irrelevant to the inquiry concerning subsection 1.
As to subsection 2, all of the events giving rise to McMann’s
claims arose in Rhode Island.

Finally, assuming McMann discovers

the identity of the CFDFC employees, a majority of the parties,
and likely all witnesses, will be located in Rhode Island, making
venue more convenient in Rhode Island.
Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the Court has
personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Daynard v. Ness, Motley,

Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42, 50 (1st Cir.
2

2002).

In order for Massachusetts to exercise personal

jurisdiction over the CFDFC, an out-of-state defendant, the Due
Process Clause requires that the CFDFC have sufficient minimum
contacts with the state, such that “maintenance of the suit does
not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.’” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 s.
Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945) (quoting Miliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S.
457, 463, 61 SA. Ct. 339, 85 L. Ed. 278 (1940)).

There is not a

single fact indicating that this Court has personal jurisdiction
over the defendant CFDFC.
A district court may transfer any civil action to another
district “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses” and “in
the interest of justice.”

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

“It is well

settled that a court may transfer a case sua sponte pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a)....” Desmond v. Nynex Corp., 37 F.3d 1484,
1994 WL 577479, *3 (1st Cir. 1994).

Although “there is a strong

presumption in favor of the plaintiff's choice of forum,” Coady
v. Ashcraft & Gerel, 223 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2000), accord
Astro–Med. Inc. v. Nihon Kohden Am., Inc., 591 F.3d 1, 13 (1st
Cir. 2009), “[w]here the operative facts of the case have no
material connection with this district, plaintiff's choice of
forum carries less weight.” United States ex rel. Ondis v. City
of Woonsocket, R.I., 480 F. Supp. 2d 434, 436 (D. Mass. 2007)
(quoting Goodman v. Schmalz, 80 F.R.D. 296, 302 (E.D.N.Y. 1978)).

3

Based upon the foregoing, transfer to the District of Rhode
Island is appropriate.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that

the case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for
the District of Rhode Island.
SO ORDERED.

July 30, 2013
DATE

/s/ William G. Young
WILLIAM G. YOUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4