Moore v. Tanner et al

Filing 3

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Eastern District of Michigan; signed by Magistrate Judge Ray Kent (fhw) [Transferred from miwd on 3/12/2025.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
TERRENCE TERRELL MOORE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:25-cv-188

v.

Honorable Ray Kent

JEFF TANNER et al.,
Defendants.

____________________________/
ORDER OF TRANSFER
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
presently is incarcerated at the Macomb Correctional Facility (MRF) in New Haven, Macomb
County, Michigan, and the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s action also occurred at MRF. Plaintiff
sues the following MRF staff: Warden Jeff Tanner, Deputy Warden Unknown Howard, Assistant
Deputy Warden Unknown Tipa, Physician Assistant Unknown Farris, and Healthcare Services. In
his pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have exhibited deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff’s medical condition of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. (ECF No. 1, generally.)
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 Macomb
County. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Healthcare Services is located within Macomb County,
and the individual Defendants are public officials serving in Macomb County, meaning that 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). Macomb

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:

March 12, 2025

/s/ Ray Kent
Ray Kent
United States Magistrate Judge

2