Brooks v. Giacobetti
Memorandum of Opinion and Order transferring this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (related doc 1 ). Judge Benita Y. Pearson 4/21/17 (C,KA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
DR. FRANK GIACOBETTI,
CASE NO. 4:17CV0699
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Pro Se Plaintiff Anthony Brooks filed this medical malpractice action against California
Surgeon Frank Giacobetti. In the Complaint (ECF No. 1) and Declaration (ECF No. 1-1),
Plaintiff alleges that prior to his incarceration, Dr. Giacobetti performed surgery to the wrong
portion of his arm following a work-related injury. He seeks monetary relief in the amount of
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Elkton Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI
Elkton”) located in the Northern District of Ohio. Prior to his incarceration, he was employed by
Target Corporation to work in their warehouse in Rialto, California. A stack of wooden pallets
fell on his left arm, causing injury to it. Plaintiff states his supervisor arranged for him to be
taken to a local medical center where the physician’s assistant diagnosed him with a sprained
wrist. When he returned to work a few days later, his supervisor was not satisfied with the status
of his injury and arranged for him to be seen by Dr. Giacobetti. Plaintiff complained of
numbness that started from the elbow and ran through his hand. He further complained that his
left wrist was in excruciating pain and he was unable to twist or turn it. Dr. Giacobetti diagnosed
Plaintiff with having an injury to his left elbow and performed surgery on it in December 2012.
Plaintiff alleges he continued to have pain in his wrist for years after his surgery. He
sought additional treatment, including during his incarceration, and has been told by other
doctors that he suffered nerve damage to his wrist. Plaintiff claims he requires additional
surgery. He alleges Dr. Giacobetti incorrectly diagnosed the source of his injury. Plaintiff
asserts claims of medical malpractice and negligence.
Although Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in a federal correctional facility within this
judicial district, this Court is not the proper venue for this case to be heard. Title 28 U.S.C., §
(b) Venue in general.--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 a substantial part of property that is the subject of the
action is situated; 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.
Here, Defendant is alleged to practice medicine in Manhattan Beach, California, which is located
in the Central District of California. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 1; ECF No. 1-1 at ¶ 2. All of the actions or
inactions that form the basis of Plaintiff’s claims also took place within the geographical
boundaries of the Central District of California. The Central District of California is, therefore,
the proper venue for this action. An improperly venued action must be dismissed unless it is “in
the interest of justice” that it be transferred to a district or division in which it could have been
brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). This Court finds it would be in the interest of justice to transfer
Accordingly, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 21, 2017
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
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?