McCain v. Pineda

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 01/18/2023. (gg)

Case 3:23-cv-00059-MEM-DB Document 7 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NATHANIEL MCCAIN,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-0059
(JUDGE MANNION)

V.

JOSE PINEDA,
Defendant

MEMORANDUM
I. Background

Plaintiff, an inmate confined in the State Correctional Institution, Camp
Hill , Pennsylvania, filed the above captioned civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983. (Doc. 1). The sole Defendant is Jose Pineda, a Lancaster
County Prison Correctional Officer. !g. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
McCain assaulted Plaintiff while Plaintiff was an inmate housed in the
Lancaster County Prison. !g. For relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, as well as declaratory relief. !g.
For the reasons that follow, the Court will transfer the above captioned
action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Case 3:23-cv-00059-MEM-DB Document 7 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 4

II. Discussion
Section 1391 (b) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides,

in

relevant part that:
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 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.
The sole Defendant named in Plaintiff's complaint is Jose Pineda, a
Lancaster County Prison Correctional Officer. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff complains of
a January 17, 2021 incident in which Defendant Pineda allegedly assaulted
Plaintiff while he was housed at the Lancaster County Prison. Id. Lancaster
County is located in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C.
§118(a).
The Court is permitted to raise the issue of an apparent lack of venue,
sua sponte, provided that it gives Plaintiff notice of its concerns and an
opportunity to be heard on the issue. See Baily v. Kirsch, No. 1:19-CV-1281,
2019 WL 3336966 at *1 (M.D . Pa. July 24, 2019) (citing Stjernholm v.
-2-

Case 3:23-cv-00059-MEM-DB Document 7 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 4

Peterson , 83 F.3d 347 , 349 (10th Cir. 1996); Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d
1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). The only named Defendant in this case is located
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the events giving rise to Plaintiff's
claims occurred in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Therefore, Plaintiff
does not allege facts that would give rise to venue in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. Through the filing of this Memorandum, the Court is placing
Plaintiff on notice that he does not allege facts that would give rise to venue
in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Section 1406(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides,

in

relevant part:
The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue
in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the
interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in
which it could have been brought.
Accordingly, when it appears that a case was brought in the wrong
venue, there are two potential remedies available: (1) the Court may dismiss
the action for lack of venue; or (2) the Court may transfer the case to the
district where it should have been brought. A court retains the power to
transfer a case from an improper venue to a proper venue even where it
lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Goldlawr. Inc. v. Heiman,
369 U.S. 463 , 465 (1962). "In most cases of improper venue, the courts
conclude that it is in the interest of justice to transfer to a proper forum rather
-3-

Case 3:23-cv-00059-MEM-DB Document 7 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 4

than to dismiss the litigation." 140 Wright & Miller §3827 at 540 (4th Ed.
2013); see also Holiday v. Sally's Park Place, Inc., No. 06-4588 , 2007 WL
2600877, at *2 (E.D . Pa. Sept. 10, 2007) ("Generally, transfer to a proper
forum is preferable to outright dismissal because it prevents repetitive motion
practice and unnecessary costs.").
In this case, since Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, the interest of justice
compels me to transfer this case so as to adequately protect Plaintiff's rights.
Transferring this case avoids any potential prejudice that might flow from the
outright dismissal of Plaintiff's case. See Baily. 2019 WL 3336966 at *2
(citing Burnett v. New York Cent. R. Co ., 380 U.S. 424, 430 (1965)

Ill. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will transfer the above
captioned action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
An appropriate order shall issue.

HY E. MANNION
tates District Judge

-4-