Lietzke v. Montgomery, County of et al
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (DPer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 17-12922
Hon. Terrence G. Berg
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, REESE MCKINNEY,
D.T. MARSHALL, ET. AL.,
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
Bill Lietzke (“Plaintiff”), a resident of Montgomery, Alabama,
filed this action pro per under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Montgomery
County, Alabama, and Montgomery County Sheriff’s officers Reese
McKinney, and D.T. Marshall (“Defendants”) on August 28, 2017.
Dkt. 1. Between August 28, 2017 and September 1, 2017, Plaintiff
filed five other cases in this District against Montgomery County
and its officers. See Case No. 17-12918, 17-12921, 17-12934, 1712935, and 17-12920.
Plaintiff alleges Montgomery County Sheriff’s officers repeatedly
“kidnapped” and detained him at Greil Memorial Psychiatric Hospital and Jackson Hospital—both located in the city of Montgomery—thereby violating his Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure. Dkt. 1 at Pg ID 1, 2, 3, 5.
For reasons discussed below venue is not proper in this District
and the Court will therefore TRANSFER this matter to the Middle
District of Alabama, Northern Division.
Under the federal venue statute, “a civil action may be brought
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides,
if all defendants are residents of the State in which that
judicial district is located;
(2) a judicial district where 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.”
28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
When a case is filed “laying venue in the wrong division or district,” the district court “shall dismiss, or in it be in the interest of
justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it
could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. §1406(a).Here, Defendants are
Montgomery County, Alabama, which is located in the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division, 28 U.S.C. § 81(b)(1), and Reese
McKinney and D.T. Marshall, who, from the pleadings, appear to
be officers with the Montgomery Sheriff’s Department. Dkt. 1 at Pg
ID 3. Public officials, such as police officers, “reside” in the county
where they serve. O’Neill v. Battisti, 472 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir.
1972). Thus, for the venue purposes of this § 1983 action, Defendants McKinney and Marshall “reside” in the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division. Plaintiff is a resident of Montgomery, Alabama, Dkt. 1 at Pg ID 1, and Defendants’ alleged unlawful detentions of him took place at hospitals in Montgomery. Id. at Pg ID 15. Reviewing the allegations in the complaint, it is also clear that
not only did “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim” occurred in the Northern District of Alabama, but
rather all such events and omissions occurred there.
Because all Defendants “reside” in the Middle District of Alabama, not the Eastern District of Michigan, and because Plaintiff’s
Complaint only contains allegations related to events or omissions
that took place in Alabama, rather than Michigan, venue is proper
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division.
For the reasons discussed above and pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1406, the Clerk shall TRANSFER this case to United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division.
The Court makes no determination regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s Complaint or his application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Dated: October 5, 2017
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically filed, and
the parties and/or counsel of record were served on October 5,
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?