Burley #502426 v. Rider et al

Filing 71

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DONALD EDWARD BURLEY,
Case No. 1:17-cv-88
Plaintiff,
Hon. Robert J. Jonker
v.
RHONDA RIDER, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
At a hearing held on April 25, 2019, the Court addressed various matters including
plaintiff’s motion for change of venue (ECF No. 53). At that time, the Court agreed to hold this
motion in abeyance. However, upon further reflection, the motion will be granted.
Plaintiff filed this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan. That court transferred the action to this district for the convenience of the parties
and witnesses, the interests of justice, and because venue of the lawsuit was not proper in the
Eastern District because plaintiff failed to allege that any of the acts, events, or omissions which
form the basis of the lawsuit took place in that district. See Opinion and Order (ECF No. 4). This
case has proceeded in this district for about two years. The only claim remaining in this lawsuit is
that Nurse Rider was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs by providing
inaccurate medical records with respect to plaintiff’s claim for a health-related accommodation.
In this regard, Judge Robert J. Jonker included the following footnote in a recent order:
The Court also observes that Plaintiff has a pending lawsuit in the Eastern
District of Michigan where he also claims, in part, that prison officials ignored his
1

hearing impairment. See Burley v. Michigan Department of Corrections, Case No.
2:16-cv-10712 (E.D. Mich. filed Feb. 25, 2016). Plaintiff is represented by counsel
in that action. All parties might prefer to have the remaining issue in this case
transferred to the Eastern District, as a matter of convenience, to the extent there
are overlapping factual issues.
Order (ECF No. 28, PageID.183).
In his motion, plaintiff cites this footnote and has asked the Court to transfer the
case back to the Eastern District. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that, “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 it might have been brought or to any district or division to
which all parties have consented.” In response to plaintiff’s motion, defendant Rider stated that
“she does not have a preference as to which judicial district tries this case.” Defendant’s Response
(ECF No. 68, PageID.299). The Court construes Nurse Rider’s statement as consent to plaintiff’s
proposed transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Accordingly,
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. § 1404(a). The Clerk shall transmit the
file forthwith to the Clerk of the Court in Detroit.

Dated: April 26, 2019

/s/ Ray Kent
United States Magistrate Judge

2