JAMES-BEY v. LASSITER et al

Filing 2

ORDER The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to transfer this action to the Middle District of North Carolina3. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 5/30/18. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)[Transferred from North Carolina Western on 5/31/2018.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:18-cv-277-FDW
TERRANCE L. JAMES-BEY,1

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
KENNETH LASSITER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the Complaint, (Doc. No. 1).
I.

BACKGROUND

The pro se Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Albemarle Correctional Institution in
Badin, North Carolina. He seeks emergency relief for alleged violations of his religious rights at
Albemarle C.I. pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 USC
2000cc et seq.2 He also cites two criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. He names as
Defendants: Kenneth Lassiter, Mr. Leach, Ms. Copple, Superintendent 1 John Doe Mr. Clelland,
Superintendent 2 John Doe, C.O. Redisivick, Sergeant Hounds, C.O. Hurley, C.O. Eudy, Ms. C.
McBride, Erik A. Hooks, Religious Coordinator Barbara Brown, Sergeant Dennis, and Ms.
McNeil.
Construing the allegations liberally, Plaintiff claims to be a Moorish American National
who has experienced “continuous persecution and assault” at Albemarle C.I. because of his

According to the information available on the North Carolina Department of Public Safety’s website,
Petitioner’s name is Terrance L. James. See https://webapps.doc.state.nc.us/opi/offendersearch.do?method=view.
1

2

Petitioner specifically states that he is not seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

1

religion. (Doc. No. 1 at 3). He seeks declaratory judgment, damages, injunctive relief, and such
other relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. (Doc. No. 1 at 5).
II.

DISCUSSION

Under the general venue provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may be brought
in “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State
in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . ; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may
otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is
subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). For
venue purposes, a “natural person” resides in the district where the person is domiciled. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(c)(1).
Even if the 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) venue requirements are satisfied, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice,” a court may
transfer a civil action to any district where the action “might have originally been brought.” In
determining whether transfer is appropriate, courts commonly consider the following factors: (1)
plaintiff’s initial choice of the forum; (2) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3)
availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the costs of obtaining
attendance of willing, witnesses; (4) possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate
to the action; (5) enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained; (6) relative advantages and
obstacles to a fair trial; (7) all other practical problems that make a trial easy, expeditious, and
inexpensive; (8) administrative difficulties of court congestion; (9) local interests in having
localized controversies settled at home; (10) the appropriateness in having the trial of a diversity
case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the action; and (11) avoidance
2

of unnecessary problems with conflict of laws. Datasouth Computer Corp. v. Three Dimensional
Techs., Inc., 719 F. Supp. 446, 450-51 (W.D.N.C. 1989).
Plaintiff presently resides at the Albemarle C.I. where the alleged incidents occurred, which
is located in Badin County in the Middle District of North Carolina. The Defendants appear to
work at either the Albemarle C.I., or at the North Carolina Department of Public Safety’s Raleigh
office in Wake County, which is in the Eastern Districts of North Carolina. To the extent that
Plaintiff may be able to state a cognizable claim against any Defendant,3 venue would be proper
in the Middle or Eastern District of North Carolina. The Middle District of North Carolina appears
to be the most appropriate venue for this action because it is where the events giving rise to the
claims occurred and where the majority of the Defendants are located.
III.

CONLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, this action will be transferred to the Middle District of North
Carolina, where the events at issue are alleged to have occurred and where the majority of the
Defendants are located.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to transfer this action to the Middle
District of North Carolina

Signed: May 30, 2018

3

The Court expresses no opinion about Plaintiff’s standing or the procedural viability or merit of his case.

3