Rankins v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

Filing 3

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Western District of Michigan. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GLEN RANKINS,
Plaintiff,

Case Number 17-12208
Honorable David M. Lawson

v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS and COREY GRAHN,
Defendants.
_________________________________/

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
On July 5, 2017, plaintiff Glen Rankins, who presently resides in the custody of the
Michigan Department of Corrections, filed his complaint in this case alleging that the defendants
violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by prescribing him medication that caused breast
enlargement. According to the cover sheet attached to the complaint, Rankins presently is housed
at the Alger Correctional Facility in Munising, Michigan. However, in his complaint Rankins
alleges that his rights were violated by the defendants when he previously was confined at the
Michigan Reformatory in Ionia, Michigan. Munising is located in Alger County, Michigan, and
Ionia is the county seat of Ionia County; both are part of the Western District of Michigan. 28
U.S.C. § 102(b). The complaint does not allege any facts to suggest that any of the defendants
reside, or that any part of the events in controversy occurred, within the Eastern District of
Michigan.
The determination of the proper venue for a civil action in federal court is “generally
governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391,” which states that “‘[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law . . . this
section shall govern the venue of all civil actions brought in district courts of the United States.’”

Atlantic Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 134 S. Ct. 568, 577 (2013)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(1)). The general venue statute “further provides that ‘[a] civil action
may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which 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.’” Ibid. (quoting 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)).
“[T]he court must determine whether the case falls within one of the three categories set out in §
1391(b). If it does, venue is proper; if it does not, venue is improper, and the case must be dismissed
or transferred under § 1406(a).” Ibid. If venue is improper in the district where a case is filed, but
would be proper in another district, “a district court has the power to sua sponte transfer [the] case”
under section 1406(a). Cosmichrome, Inc. v. Spectra Chrome, LLC, 504 F. App’x 468, 472 (6th Cir.
2012); see also Thornton v. Walter, 774 F.2d 1164, 1985 WL 13711, at *2 (6th Cir. 1985)
(unpublished table decision) (collecting cases).
None of the facts alleged in the complaint suggest that any defendant resides within this
district, and all of the events described in the pleadings occurred within the Western District of
Michigan. Although venue is not proper in this district, the facts pleaded in the complaint show that
the case properly could have been brought in the Western District. Because there is no apparent
basis for venue to lie in this district, but there are facts in the complaint suggesting that venue would
be proper in the Western District, the Court finds that the interests of justice would be served by
transferring the case to the district where it should have been filed in the first instance. 28 U.S.C.

-2-

§ 1406(a) (“The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division
or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or
division in which it could have been brought.”).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall TRANSFER this case to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: July 28, 2017
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on July 28, 2017.
s/Susan Pinkowski
SUSAN PINKOWSKI

-3-