Jenkins #172475 v. Turner et al

Filing 4

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Eastern District of Michigan; signed by Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr (Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr., fhw)

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

VAN JENKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:14-cv-1091
Honorable Robert J. Jonker

TERRY TURNER et al.,
ORDER OF TRANSFER
Defendants.
____________________________________/
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff presently is incarcerated at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility, located in Jackson,
Michigan. Plaintiff sues Terry Turner, Leonitta Turner, and Mark Davison, his former landlords and
their agent. In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12205, by wrongfully taking and retaining a variety of Plaintiff’s
personal property.
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 about which Plaintiff complains occurred
in Ypsilanti, Michigan, which is located in Washtenaw County. Washtenaw County is within the
geographical boundaries of the Eastern District of Michigan. 28 U.S.C. § 102(a). Plaintiff makes
no specific allegations about Defendants’ residency, but he suggests that they are residents of
Washtenaw County or an adjacent county, all of which are located in the Eastern District of
Michigan. Plaintiff’s allegations against these Defendants arose in Washtenaw County, where

Defendants allegedly committed the acts giving rise to this case. See Leroy v. Great W. United
Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 185-87 (1979). 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2014

/s/ Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr.
HUGH W. BRENNEMAN, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

-2-