Campbell #485906 v. Michigan Reformatory
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Western District of Michigan. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (DPer) [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 9/24/2015.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:15-cv-13265
Hon. Victoria A. Roberts
V.
PRISON,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS
COMPLAINT TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Robert Campbell, a Michigan Prisoner currently residing at the Michigan Reformatory, filed
a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint names “Prison” as the party
defendant. Plaintiff’s complaint asserts that correctional officers put him in the “hole” after placing
things in his cell and writing him “tickets” for it. He seeks damages and injunctive relief. For the
reasons stated below, the Court will transfer this matter to the Western District of Michigan for
further proceedings.
The defendant named in the complaint is, it seems, intended to be the Michigan Reformatory,
which is located in Ionia County in the Western District of Michigan. The events described in the
complaint are alleged to have occurred at the Michigan Reformatory. The proper venue for civil
actions is in the judicial district where: (1) any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same
state; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a
substantial part of the property in question is situated; or (3) any defendant may be found if there
is no other district in which the plaintiff may bring the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may
transfer any civil action to any other district or division where the action might have been brought.”
See Weatherford v. Gluch, 708 F. Supp. 818, 819 (E.D. Mich. 1988) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)).
Venue of a lawsuit may be transferred sua sponte for the convenience of parties or witnesses. See
Sadighi v. Daghighfekr, 36 F. Supp. 2d 267, 278 (D.S.C. 1999).
The Court concludes that both for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as well as
in the interests of justice, the present matter must be transferred to the Western District of Michigan.
This Court therefore lacks venue for the § 1983 claim against defendant. See Mihalek Corp. v. State
of Mich., 595 F. Supp. 903, 906 (E.D. Mich. 1984).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to transfer this case to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: September 23, 2015
2
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?