Curtis v. Nagy et al

Filing 3

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Eastern District of Michigan; signed by Magistrate Judge Ray Kent (fhw) [Transferred from miwd on 11/22/2024.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
READY C. CURTIS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:24-cv-1204

v.

Honorable Ray Kent

NOAH NAGY et al.,
Defendants.

____________________________/
ORDER OF TRANSFER
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is
presently incarcerated at the Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT) in Jackson, Jackson County,
Michigan, and the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues the
following SMT staff: Warden Noah Nagy; Healthcare Unit Manager Unknown King; Registered
Nurses Jasmine Crowell and Rebecca Wyse; and Lieutenant Unknown Crites. (Compl., ECF
No. 1, PageID.2.) In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges that “medical protocol” was not
followed for his “scabies quarantine” and that the responses to his grievances about the issue were
inadequate. (See id., PageID.3–5.)
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 underlying the complaint occurred in Jackson
County. Defendants are public officials serving in Jackson 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). Jackson County is within the

geographical boundaries of the Eastern District of Michigan. 28 U.S.C. § 102(a). 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).

Dated:

November 21, 2024

/s/ Ray Kent
Ray Kent
United States Magistrate Judge

2