Stone v. Thompson

Filing 3

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Eastern District of Michigan; signed by Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr (Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr., fhw) [Transferred from miwd on 8/3/2015.]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEVEN MICHAEL STONE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:15-cv-765
Honorable Paul L. Maloney

UNKNOWN THOMPSON,
ORDER OF TRANSFER
Defendant.
____________________________________/
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff presently is incarcerated at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility.

Plaintiff sues

(Unknown) Thompson, a Corrections Officer employed at the Gus Harrison Facility. In his pro se
complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, over the past three months, Defendant Thompson has verbally and
sexually harassed him, written false misconduct reports against him and threatened to kill him.
Under the revised venue statute, venue in federal-question cases lies in the district
in which any defendant resides or in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise
to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred at
the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, which is located in Lenawee County. Lenawee County is
within the geographical boundaries of the Eastern District of Michigan. 28 U.S.C. § 102(a).
Defendant is a public official serving in Lenawee County, and he “resides” in that county for
purposes of venue over a suit challenging official acts. See Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U.S. 128, 132
(1885); O’Neill v. Battisti, 472 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1972). In addition, Plaintiff’s allegations
against Defendant arose in Lenawee County, where Defendant allegedly committed the acts giving

rise to this case. See Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 185-87 (1979). In these
circumstances, venue is proper only in the Eastern District. Therefore:
IT IS ORDERED that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). It is noted that this Court has
not decided Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, nor has the Court reviewed
Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A, or under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2015

/s/ Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr.
HUGH W. BRENNEMAN, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

-2-