Hill v. Young et al

Filing 22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons stated below, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that venue of this case does not properly lie in the Middle District of Tennessee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and the undersigned therefore recommends that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 9/9/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(tmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
LORI LEE HILL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN B. YOUNG, et al.,
Defendants.

NO. 3:11-0853
Judge Haynes/Bryant

TO: The Honorable William J. Haynes, Jr.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This case has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge for frivolity review, pretrial management, and report and
recommendation on dispositive motion (Docket Entry No. 21).
For the reasons stated below, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge finds that venue of this case does not properly lie in the
Middle District of Tennessee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and the
undersigned therefore recommends that this case be transferred to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Western Division.
Statement of the Case
Plaintiff Lori Hill, a pro se prisoner who is seeking to
proceed in forma pauperis, has filed her complaint against Captain
B. Young and Yolanda Pettitt (Docket Entry No. 1).
complaint

(Docket

Entry

No.

6),

plaintiff

has

By amended
added

as

an

additional defendant the Mark H. Luttrell Correctional Center
(“MLCC”).

It appears from the complaint filed on a printed form

intended for civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that
plaintiff Hill seeks to sue defendant Pettitt, identified as
plaintiff’s cell mate at MLCC, for injuries sustained during
multiple physical assaults by defendant Pettitt.

Plaintiff also

seeks to sue defendant Young for “sexual harassment” based upon a
physical search of plaintiff allegedly ordered by defendant Young,
who is presumably a corrections officer employed at MLCC.
Based upon a liberal reading of plaintiff’s complaint,
all of the events giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim occurred in
Memphis, Tennessee, while plaintiff was confined as an inmate at
the MLCC there.
has

been

Although the complaint alleges that plaintiff now

transferred

to

the

Tennessee

Prison

for

Women

in

Nashville, Tennessee, there is no indication that any of the events
giving rise to the plaintiff’s claims occurred within the Middle
District of Tennessee or that any of the defendants reside or may
be found within this district.
Analysis
Section 1391 of Title 28 of the United States Code
contains the general venue provision for civil actions.

Section

1391(b) provides that a civil action wherein jurisdiction is not
founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise
provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where
any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events

2

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) a judicial
district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no
district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
The undersigned Magistrate Judge finds from a reading of
the complaint and amended complaint that all of the events giving
rise to plaintiff’s complaint occurred in Memphis, Tennessee, which
lies

within

district.

the

Western

District

of

Tennessee

and

not

this

Moreover, there is no allegation that any defendant

named in this case resides within the Middle District of Tennessee,
and, although the complaint does not state a residence for either
defendant Young or defendant Pettitt, a reasonable inference would
be that both of these defendants, and certainly the Mark Luttrell
Correctional Center, can be found within the Western District of
Tennessee.
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge finds that venue of this action does not properly lie within
the Middle District of Tennessee and, therefore, this case should
be

transferred

for

further

proceedings

to

the

United

States

District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western
Division, in Memphis.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge RECOMMENDS that this case should be transferred to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
3

Western Division, on the grounds that proper venue does not lie in
this district.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
any party has fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and
Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this
Recommendation, with the District Court.

Any party opposing said

objections shall have fourteen (14) days from receipt of any
objections filed in this Report in which to file any responses to
said objections.

Failure to file specific objections within

fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation can
constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111
(1986).
ENTERED this 9th day of September 2011.
s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge

4