Tillman v. Meijer Store - Portage et al

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER reopening case and transferring case to the Western District of Michigan. Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MATTHEW FOREST TILLMAN,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 15-cv-10091

vs.

HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

MEIJER, et al.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO REOPEN AND
TRANSFER CASE TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
I. Background
This matter is presently before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for relief from
judgment [docket entry 7], seeking relief from the Court’s January 21, 2015, order dismissing the
complaint. In that order, the Court determined that plaintiff’s complaint failed to plead a
cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it “failed to allege whether the underlying
conviction, which gave rise to [plaintiff’s] allegations of false arrest and malicious prosecution,
was ever ‘reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.’”

See Docket Entry 4. Plaintiff

previously challenged this Court’s order dismissing the complaint in his “motion to reinstate
complaint and correct deficiency,” which the Court construed as a motion for reconsideration
under E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). The Court denied that motion in an order dated February 20,
2015.

See Docket Entry 6.
1

Upon further review of this matter, the Court shall grant plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)
motion [docket entry 7] to the following extent. The Court shall (1) vacate its January 21,
2015, opinion and order granting plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismissing the complaint; (2) direct the Clerk of Court to reopen the case; (3) vacate its February
20, 2015, order denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration1; and (4) transfer the matter to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
II. Discussion
A. Plaintiff’s Case Shall be Re-Opened
Plaintiff brings the instant motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), seeking relief from
the Court’s January 21, 2015, opinion and order so that he can correct his pleading errors in the
complaint, which he claims “w[]ere excusable neglect and a mistake on Plaintiff’s behalf for not
producing the attached Evidence.” See Pl.’s Mot., p. 3. As noted, plaintiff’s complaint was
summarily dismissed because it failed to allege whether the underlying conviction giving rise to
the § 1983 claim was ever reversed, expunged, or declared invalid.
attempts to correct this deficiency.

The instant motion

Plaintiff claims that he was never convicted of the

underlying offense (conspiracy to operate/maintain a lab involving methamphetamine) from
which his § 1983 claim stems. For support, plaintiff includes as an exhibit to his motion a copy
of the “Order of Acquittal/Dismissal or Remand” from case number 2013-0725-FH from the 9th
Judicial Circuit Court in Kalamazoo, Michigan, dismissing his criminal case without prejudice.
Thus, plaintiff’s current motion corrects the pleading deficiency because it clarifies that

1

To the extent the Court relied on Cantley v. Armstrong, 319 F. App’x 505, 507 (6th Cir. 2010),
and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir. 1997), in its opinion and order denying
plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, this was misplaced, as Gunther v. Castineta, 561 F. App’x
497 (6th Cir. 2014), is more controlling authority.
2

plaintiff’s § 1983 claim stems not from the conviction for which he is currently serving a
sentence, but from a criminal case that was ultimately dismissed.
Rule 60(b)(1) “permits courts to reopen judgments for reasons of ‘mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.’” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd.
P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993). In light of the information contained within plaintiff’s
motion for relief from judgment, the Court shall direct the Clerk of Court to reopen the case to the
Court’s active docket. Because the Court is transferring this case to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan, however, the Court shall not decide any other matters relating to
this case, as those issues are more appropriately decided by the transferee court.
B. The Case Shall be Transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District
of Michigan
The proper venue for civil actions is the judicial district where (1) “any
defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state”; (2) “a substantial part of the events
or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of the property in question is
situated”; or (3) “any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction,” if the first two
circumstances do not apply. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Public officials “reside” in the county
where they serve. See O'Neill v. Battisti, 472 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1972).

“ The district

court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong . . . district shall dismiss, or
if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district . . . it could have been brought.”
See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
The conduct that forms the basis of the complaint occurred in Portage, Michigan.
The defendants are also located in Portage. Portage is located in Kalamazoo County, which is
in the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b). Thus, the
3

Western District of Michigan is the proper venue and forum for this action.
III.

Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion [docket entry 7] is

granted as follows:

IT IS ORDERED that the Court’s January 21, 2015, opinion and order granting
plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint is vacated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall reopen the case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s February 20, 2015, order denying
plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is vacated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall transfer this matter to
the Western District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

s/ Bernard A. Friedman
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 1, 2015
Detroit, Michigan

4