Brown #181534 v. Rivard et al

Filing 4

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Eastern District of Michigan; signed by Magistrate Judge Ray Kent (Magistrate Judge Ray Kent, fhw)

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

RONALD KIRK BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:16-cv-504
Honorable Robert Holmes Bell

STEVE RIVARD 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 Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility. Plaintiff sues seven
prison officials employed at the St. Louis Correctional Facility. In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants abused and retaliated against Plaintiff while he was housed at the St. Louis
Correctional Facility because Plaintiff had filed a prior civil rights action against employees of the
facility.
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 giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred at
the St. Louis, Michigan, which is located in Gratiot County. Gratiot County is within the
geographical boundaries of the Eastern District of Michigan. 28 U.S.C. § 102(a). Defendants are
public officials serving in Gratiot 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). 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: May 20, 2016

/s/ Ray Kent
RAY KENT
United States Magistrate Judge

-2-