Perez v. Washington, et. al

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Western District of Michigan. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LUCIANO PEREZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-14011

HEIDI WASHINGTON, AND
MICHAEL EAGAN
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Luciano Perez, a Michigan Prisoner currently residing at the G. Robert Cotton
Correctional Facility, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
complaint names Heidi Washington, Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections,
and Michael E. Eagan, Chairperson of the Michigan Parole Board, as the Defendants.
Plaintiff’s complaint asserts that while he was housed at the Brooks Correctional Facility,
located in Muskegon, Michigan, he was denied parole despite a 5-to-5 vote. He alleges that
another prisoner, presumably facing a similar situation, had his parole process redone.
Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief. For the reasons stated below, the court will
transfer this matter to the Western District of Michigan for further proceedings.
The Defendants named in the complaint are the Director of the Michigan Department
of Corrections and the Chairperson of the Michigan Parole Board, both of whom reside in
Lansing, Michigan, located in the Western District of Michigan. Plaintiff alleges he was
denied parole when he was housed in the Brooks Correctional Facility in Muskegon,

Michigan, also located in the Western District of Michigan. The proper venue for civil
actions is in 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
may be found if there is no other district in which the plaintiff may bring the action. 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b).
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district
court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where the action might
have been brought.” See Weatherford v. Gluch, 708 F. Supp. 818, 819 (E.D. Mich. 1988)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)). Venue of a lawsuit may be transferred sua sponte for the
convenience of parties or witnesses. See Sadighi v. Daghighfekr, 36 F. Supp. 2d 267, 278
(D.S.C. 1999).
The court concludes that both for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as
well as in the interests of justice, the present matter must be transferred to the Western
District of Michigan, where the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred
and all Defendants reside. This court lacks venue for the § 1983 claims against these
Defendants. See Mihalek Corp. v. State of Mich., 595 F. Supp. 903, 906 (E.D. Mich. 1984).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court transfer this case to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a).

s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 31, 2016
2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on
this date, January 31, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

3