Martin #215166 v. Heyns et al
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Western District of Michigan. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DPer) (Main Document 4 replaced on 5/10/2016) (DPer). [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 5/10/2016.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARVIN DEREK MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 2:16-CV-11600
HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
v.
DAN HEYNS, et. al.,
Defendants,
/
OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS
COMPLAINT TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Marvin Derek Martin, (“plaintiff”), presently confined at the Oaks Correctional Facility
in Manistee, Michigan, filed a civil rights complaint in this district against the defendants
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, plaintiff claims that his constitutional rights
were violated by the defendants either while he was incarcerated at the Brooks Correctional
Facility (L.R.F.) in Muskegon Heights, Michigan or at the Oaks Correctional Facility (E.C.F.) in
Manistee, Michigan. For the reasons stated below, the Court will transfer this matter to the
Western District of Michigan for further proceedings.
I. DISCUSSION
All of the actions complained of by plaintiff took place either at the Brooks Correctional
Facility in Muskegon Heights, Michigan or at the Oaks Correctional Facility in Manistee,
Michigan, both of which are located in the Western District of Michigan. All of the defendants
named in the complaint reside in the Western District of Michigan. Plaintiff is currently
incarcerated at the Oaks Correctional Facility.
1
Venue is in the judicial district where either all defendants reside or where the claim
arose. Al-Muhaymin v. Jones, 895 F.2d 1147, 1148 (6th Cir. 1990); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Public
officials “reside” in the county where they serve. See O’Neill v. Battisti, 472 F. 2d 789, 791 (6th
Cir. 1972). 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 United States v. P.J. Dick, Inc., 79 F. Supp. 2d 803, 805-06 (E.D. Mich.
2000)(Gadola, J.); 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Venue of a lawsuit may be transferred sua sponte for
the convenience of parties or witnesses. See Schultz v. Ary, 175 F. Supp. 2d 959, 964 (W.D.
Mich. 2001).
The factors that guide a district court’s discretion in deciding whether to transfer a case
include: (1) the convenience of the witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents and the
relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties; (4) the locus of the
operative facts; (5) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses;
(6) the relative means of the parties; (7) the forum’s familiarity with governing law; (8) the
weight accorded the plaintiff’s choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and interests of justice,
based upon the totality of the circumstances. Overland, Inc. v. Taylor, 79 F. Supp. 2d 809, 811
(E.D. Mich. 2000)(Gadola, J.).
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. The primary factor in making the determination to transfer venue is that all of the
“operative facts” in this case took place either at the Brooks Correctional Facility or at the Oaks
Correctional Facility, both of which are located in the Western District of Michigan. See Pierce
2
v. Coughlin, 806 F. Supp. 426, 428 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the
Western District of Michigan and the defendants all reside in this district. In cases in which a
plaintiff’s claims may require testimony or files that can be most easily obtained at or near the
plaintiff’s place of incarceration, “the district in which the institution is located will ordinarily be
the more convenient forum.” See Joyner v. District of Columbia, 267 F. Supp. 2d 15, 20-21
(D.D.C. 2003)(quoting Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 931 (D.C. Cir.1974)). Finally, the
witnesses and files necessary to prosecute these claims are located in the Western District of
Michigan and the burden of transporting plaintiff to this judicial district would be significant.
For these reasons, transfer of this action to the Western District would be proper. See Welch v.
Kelly, 882 F. Supp. 177, 180 (D.D.C. 1995).
Venue for plaintiff’s lawsuit against the defendants is not proper in the Eastern District of
Michigan, because plaintiff has failed to allege that any of the acts, events, or omissions which
form the basis of his lawsuit took place in the Eastern District of Michigan. See Miles v. WTMX
Radio, 15 F. App’x. 213, 215 (6th Cir. 2001). The Court concludes that venue in this § 1983
lawsuit lies in the Western District of Michigan, where plaintiff alleges that the civil rights
violations occurred.
II. ORDER
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).
s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 10, 2016
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or
party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on May 10, 2016.
s/Deborah Tofil
Case Manager
4
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?