Teets #759627 v. Vanderwagon et al

Filing 9

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Western District of Michigan. Signed by District Judge Shalina D. Kumar. (TTho) [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 11/22/2024.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JACOB ROBERT TEETS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 4:24-cv-10426

v.
WARDEN VANDERWAGEN, et al.,

Honorable Shalina D. Kumar
United States District Judge

Defendants.
ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF MICHIGAN
Jacob Robert Teets, a Michigan prisoner without a lawyer confined at
the St. Louis Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan, has filed a
complaint raising claims for violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. See
42 U.S.C. § 1983.

He sues Michigan Department of Corrections

employees Warden Vanderwagen, John Doe, Prison Counselor Douglas,
Sergeant Lanore, Correctional Officer Jacobson, Correctional Officer
Parnell, and Sergeant Wakefield in their individual and official capacities.
Preston alleges that all claims arose during his incarceration at the Earnest
C. Brooks Correctional Facility in Muskegon, Michigan.

He requests

monetary relief. The Court has granted his application for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 5.)
A review of Teets’s allegations shows that his case would have been

brought more appropriately in the Western District of Michigan. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391 governs venue in federal civil cases and provides that a civil action
may be brought in either: (1) a judicial district in which any defendant
resides; or (2) the district in which a substantial part of the events giving
rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The Earnest C. Brooks
Correctional Facility is located in Muskegon County, which is in the
Western District of Michigan. 28 U.S.C. § 102(b). Further, it appears from
the complaint that all defendants are employed there, and that all the
events forming the basis for his claims arose there.
If venue is improper in the district where a case is filed, a district
court may transfer it to the appropriate district. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see
also Sifuentes v. Pluto TV, No. 23-cv-10129, 2023 WL 319929, at *1
(E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2023) (“Congress has instructed district courts to
dismiss, or in the interest of justice transfer, a case filed in the wrong
division or district. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)”).
Accordingly, IT

IS

ORDERED

that

this

case

be

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Court has not
reviewed Teets’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A, or
under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Shalina D. Kumar
SHALINA D. KUMAR
United States District Judge

Dated: November 21, 2024

3