Staffney #862514 v. Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility

Filing 3


Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MARQUAN D. STAFFNEY, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:17-cv-10690 Hon. Sean F. Cox v. BELLAMY CREEK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendant. ________________________________________/ ORDER TRANSFERRING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Marquan D. Staffney, a Michigan Prisoner currently residing at the Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility in Baraga, Michigan, filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint asserts that various employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections, employed at the Bellamy Creek Facility, violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when he was punished for prison rule violations that he did not commit. For the reasons stated below, the Court will transfer this matter to the Western District of Michigan for further proceedings. The Defendants reside in Ionia County, Michigan, where the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility is located. The events described in the complaint also are alleged to have occurred in Ionia County. 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 where the defendants are located and the events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred. This Court lacks venue for the § 1983 claims against defendants. 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 noted that this Court has not decided whether Plaintiff may proceed in this action 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: March 23, 2017 s/Sean F. Cox Sean F. Cox U. S. District Judge I hereby certify that on March 23, 2017, the foregoing document was served on counsel of record 2 via electronic means and upon Marquan D. Staffney via First Class mail at the address below: Marquan D. Staffney 862514 BARAGA MAXIMUM CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 13924 WADAGA ROAD BARAGA, MI 49908 s/J. McCoy Case Manager 3

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?