Hinds v. Bishop et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 of Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones...this case is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma for all further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 2/1/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Report and Recommendation)(cla) [Transferred from Oklahoma Western on 2/2/2017.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
C.O. BISHOP, et al.,
Case No. CIV-16-1489-HE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights when he was imprisoned
at the Northeast Oklahoma Correctional Facility (NOCC). The matter has been referred by Chief
United States District Judge Joe Heaton for proposed findings and recommendations consistent
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that
the action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
The Court is obligated to review complaints filed by prisoners who seek redress from
governmental entities or officers or employees of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
As part of this obligation, the Court may consider whether venue is proper sua sponte “when the
defense is obvious from the face of the complaint and no further factual record is required to be
developed.” Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); see also
Lewis v. Ctr. Mkt., 378 F. App’x 780, 787 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (holding that a district
court may consider venue on a § 1915 screening); Johnson v. Christopher, 233 F. App’x 852, 85354 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (acknowledging district court has discretion to dismiss or
transfer for improper venue).
Venue is proper in a civil action 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1391. Plaintiff alleges wrongdoing occurring while he was incarcerated at NOCC.
Compl. 3-4 [Doc. No. 1].1 The defendants in this action are prison officials at NOCC located in
Vinita, Oklahoma. Id. at 1-3. Furthermore, Plaintiff asserts that each of the defendants are citizens
of Vinita, Oklahoma. Id. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Vinita, Oklahoma is
located in Craig County, Oklahoma—a county which is within the territorial confines of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. See 28 U.S.C. § 116(a). As such,
even though Plaintiff is presently confined in a facility within this judicial district, 2 because both
the alleged actions giving rise to the claim occurred and the defendants reside outside of this
district, venue is not proper in this Court.
Although the matter is subject to dismissal, a district court may cure a defect in venue by
transferring the case to “any district or division in which it could have been brought” if transfer is
“in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). It is recommended that this Court exercise its
discretion and transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Page references are to the CM/ECF page number.
Plaintiff is confined at the Cimarron Correctional Facility, Compl. 1, which is located in Payne
It is recommended that this action, with all pleadings filed in this Court, be transferred to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
The parties are advised of their right to object to this Report and Recommendation. See 28
U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed with the Clerk of the District Court by January 26,
2017. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to make timely objection to
this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of the factual and legal
issues addressed herein. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991).
STATUS OF REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral by the Chief District Judge in this
ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2017.
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?