Goldstein v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER transferring this case to the USDC for the Easter District of Virginia; staying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 4/30/2018. (c/m 05/01/2018 - jf3s, Deputy Clerk)[Transferred from Maryland on 5/1/2018.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern
Division
*
DAVID SCOTT GOLDSTEIN,
#454530,
*
Case No.: G.JH-18-294
Plaintiff,
*
v.
*
COMMONWEALTH
OF VIRGINIA,
GOVERNOR RALPH NORTHAM,
*
*
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM
*
*
OPINION
*
*
*
Complaint
*
AND ORDER
On January 26. 2018, the Clerk received for filing the above-captioned
represented
*
three-page self ..
for damages from David Scott Goldstein, who is detained at the
Baltimore County Detention Center ('"BCDC") in Towson. Maryland. ECF NO.1. The
Complaint.
tiled against the Commonwealth
of Virginia and Virginia Governor Ralph N0l1ham,
alleges that Goldstein was detained at the Henrico County Jail from September 23, 2016 to April
10,2017, on unspecified
Department
offenses. He appears to claim that he was moved to the Virginia
of Corrections
time for his misdemeanor
and violates the prohibition
to serve a ten month. two week term and this resulted in him serving
otfense twice. He complains that this constitutes
against double jeopardy.
false imprisonment
lei. at 3. He seeks $2.000.000.00 in damages
for pain and suffering. Id. at 4. For reasons to follow. the Complaint shall be transferred to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
I Plaintiff has filed a Motion lor Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
stayed pending review by the transferee court.
I
ECF NO.2. A decision
011
this Motion shall be
Defendants
claims occurred
are all located in Virginia and all events which gave rise to Goldstein's
in Virginia. Under Title 28 U.S.c. ~ 1391 (b). a civil action may be brought in--
(1) ajudicial district in which any defendant
of the State in which the district is located:
resides. ifall defendants
are residents
(2) ajudicial 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 delcndant is subject to the court's
personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
In enacting ~ 1391 (b). it is evident that Congress did not intend to provide for venue at
the residence of the plainti ITor to give that party an unfettered choice among di rterent districts.
Rather. Congress
intended to restrict venue to "either the residence of the defendants
place which may be more convenient
to the litigants-i.e
.. both of them-or
or to a
to the witnesses
who are to testi fy in the case'" Leroy v. (lreal Weslem Uniled. 443 U.S. 173. 185 (1979)
(internal citation omitted).
protect the defendant
In most cases. the purpose of a statutorily
speci lied venue statute is to
against the risk that a plaintiff will select an unfair or inconvenient
place
for trial. Id. at 183-84.
The named Defendants
incarceration
Maryland.
are located in Virginia. Further. Plaintiffs
occurred in Henrico County. Virginia. The underlying
Assuming.
civil rights allegation.
~ 1406(a). See
III
without deciding. that Goldstein
arrest. prosecution
case has no connection
and
to
has stated a colorable 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983
the claim should be brought in the Eastern District of Virginia. 28 U.S.c.
re Care.!lrsl q/Mwy/alld.
Inc.. 305 F.3d 253. 255-256
(4th Cir. 2002) (transfer
of case under ~ 1406(a) to any district which would have had venue if the case was originally
brought in that district);
Wayles
1'.
Cily olChar/ollesl'i//e.
2
153 F.3d 725 (4th Cir. 1(98) (when
confronted
with a case laying venue in the wrong district. district court is statutorily obligated to
dismiss the case unless transferring
the case to a district where the action could have been
brought is in the interest of justice).
Based on the CourCs finding in the current action. transfer will occur pursuant to
* 1406(a)
to the United States District Court lar the Eastcrn District of Virginia for all further
proceedings.
Thercfc)re. it is hereby ORDERED.
District of Maryland.
by the Uilited Stated District Court for the
that:
1. The CLERK SHALL TRANSFER
* 1406(a).
Spottswood
to the United Stated District Court lar the Eastern District of Virginia
W. Robinson
[[I & Robert R. Merhige . .Ir. U.S. Courthousc.
Broad Street. Suite 3000. Richmond.
as may be deemed appropriate
2.
the case file. pursuant to 28 U.S.c.
Decision as to Plaintiffs
NO.2. IS STAYED
701
Virginia 23219. lar all further proceedings
by that court:
Motion lar Leave to Proceed [n Forma Pauperis. ECF
pending review by the Transfcrec
3. The Clerk SHALL MAIL a copy of this Memorandum
Court: and
Opinion and Order to
Plaintiff.
Dated: April 30. 2018
GEORGE.r. HAZEL
United States District Judge
3
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?