DAVIS v. PEARSON, et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 9/27/17. (lg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JANET PEARSON, ET AL.,
SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
Patrick Davis, an inmate presently confined at the State Correctional
Institution, Houtzdale, Pennsylvania (SCI-Houtzdale), filed this pro se civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accompanying the Complaint is an in forma
pauperis application.1 Service of the Complaint has not yet been ordered.
Named as Defendants are the following SCI-Houtzdale employees: Health
Care Administrator Janet Pearson, Employment Officer Susan McQuillen,
Principal Michelle McMullen and Doctor Naji. Plaintiff alleges that during his
ongoing SCI-Houtzdale confinement he has been denied adequate medical care and
denied an educational exemption. As relief, Davis seeks compensatory and
Davis completed this Court's form application to proceed in forma pauperis and authorization
to have funds deducted from his prison account.
punitive damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides 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 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 a defendant is subject to the court’s personal
jurisdiction with respect to such action brought.
Plaintiff and the Defendants are all located at SCI-Houtzdale and all of the
alleged events occurred at SCI-Houtzdale. SCI-Houtzdale is located within both
Clearfield County, Pennsylvania and the confines of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(c). Plaintiff
even alleges that the Western District is the appropriate forum for his action. See
Doc. 1, ¶ 2. For whatever reason, the matter was filed in this Court.
It is equally well settled that a court may transfer any civil action for the
convenience of the parties or witnesses, or in the interest of justice, to any district
where the action might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The United
States Supreme Court in Hoffman v, Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343 (1960), recognized
that under § 1404(a), a civil action may be transferred by a district court to another
district court where that action may have been brought by the plaintiff.
Based on the location of Plaintiff, the named Defendants, and the nature of
Davis’ allegations, it is apparent that the convenience of the parties and the
interests of justice would be best served by transferring this matter to the judicial
district where the Plaintiff is incarcerated, the Defendants are located, and the
underlying events transpired.
Since the Western District of Pennsylvania is that proper forum, this matter
will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
An appropriate Order will enter.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
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?