Friske-Bremer et al v. Walsh et al

Filing 4

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Eastern District of Michigan; signed by Magistrate Judge Ray Kent (Magistrate Judge Ray Kent, fhw) [Transferred from miwd on 7/25/2017.]

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

WILLIAM GENTRY FRISKE-BREMER et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:17-cv-590
Honorable Robert J. Jonker

JACK WALSH et al.,
ORDER OF TRANSFER
Defendants.
____________________________________/
This is a civil rights action brought by a Lenawee County detainee and a State of
Michigan prisoner, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs William Gentry Friske-Bremer and
Bradley Alan Bremer, a married couple, presently are incarcerated at the Lenawee County Jail and
Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, respectively. Plaintiffs sue Lenawee County Sheriff Jack Walsh,
the Lenawee County Jail, and Lenawee County Deputy Heather Sadayko. In their pro se complaint,
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have deprived Plaintiff Friske-Bremer of access to legal materials
during his time at the Lenawee County Jail.
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
Lenawee County Jail, 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). Defendants are
public officials serving in Lenawee County, and they “reside” 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 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 Friske-Bremer’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, nor has the Court
reviewed Plaintiffs’ complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A, or under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2017

/s/ Ray Kent
RAY KENT
United States Magistrate Judge

-2-