Kelley #259579 v. Atkinson, et al

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Western District of Michigan. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (DPer) [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 5/29/2014.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
MARCUS M. KELLY,
Plaintiff,
v

Case No. 14-cv-11894
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

KIMBERLY ATKINSON, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS
COMPLAINT TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Plaintiff Marcus M. Kelly, presently confined at the Kinross Correctional Facility in
Kincheloe, Michigan,1 has 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 have
been violated by the defendants during his incarceration at the Kinross Correctional Facility.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that his First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were
violated when (1) prison officials prevented him from participating in a deposition via
teleconference, (2) the mailroom supervisor rejected his “legal mail”, and (3) prison officials did
not allow Plaintiff to correspond with his attorney. Plaintiff also alleges that his First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because prison officials retaliated against him for
petitioning the government to redress his grievances. For the reasons stated below, the Court will
transfer this matter to the Western District of Michigan for further proceedings.
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Kinross Correctional Facility in Kincheloe,
Michigan, which is located in the Western District of Michigan. In the present case, all of the
1

Kincheloe, Michigan, lies within the geographic area encompassed by the Western District of Michigan.

actions complained of by Plaintiff—interference with his legal proceedings and retaliation by
prisoner officials—took place at the Kinross Correctional Facility. In addition, all of the
defendants named in the complaint reside in the Western District of Michigan.
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). 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); 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).
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 at the Kinross Correctional Facility, which is located in
the Western District of Michigan. See Pierce v. Coughlin, 806 F. Supp. 426, 428 (S.D.N.Y.

-2-

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 is 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.
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/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: May 28, 2014

-3-

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney of record herein by electronic means and upon
Marcus Kelly #259579, at Kinross Correctional Facility, 16770 S.
Watertower Drive, Kincheloe, MI 49788 by first class U.S. mail on May
28, 2014.
s/Tracy A. Jacobs
TRACY A. JACOBS

-4-