Green v. Beth et al

Filing 53

ORDER granting defendants' 41 Motion to Transfer to Eastern District of Wisconsin. The clerk of court is directed to TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofWisconsin. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 2/1/2017. (jef),(ps) [Transferred from wiwd on 2/2/2017.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VALIANT GREEN,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
15-cv-540-bbc
v.
DAVID G. BETH, BRAD HEILET,
DAVE LIANEU, JANE AND/OR JOHN
DOE NURSING STAFF and JOHN
DOE FOOD VENDOR/DISTRIBUTOR,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff Valiant Green is proceeding on the following claims: (1) defendants
David Beth, Brad Heilet and Dave Lianeu failed to properly screen the food at the Kenosha
County Detention Center or otherwise take steps to protect prisoners from unsafe food, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment and Wisconsin common law negligence; (2) an unknown
food vendor or distributor failed to prepare or screen the food properly, in violation of
Wisconsin common law negligence; and (3) an unknown nurse or nurses refused to provide
treatment to plaintiff for several days after he damaged his teeth, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment and Wisconsin common law negligence. I stayed the case to attempt to recruit
counsel for plaintiff, dkt. #36, but then lifted the stay after defendants moved under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1404 to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Dkt.
#44. I concluded that it made sense to resolve the venue issue before recruiting counsel,
1

both because plaintiff was capable of litigating the relatively simple question of venue on his
own and because appointing counsel before a potential transfer could create an
inconvenience for any local lawyer who agreed to take the case. Cf. Lee v. Foster, No. 15-cv1132 (E.D. Wis.), dkt. #34 (relieving recruited counsel of any further obligations after
deciding to transfer case to Western District of Wisconsin).
Defendants argue that the case should be transferred because all of the known
defendants reside in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, making venue appropriate there
under § 1391(b)(1), and the events giving rise to this case occurred in that district, making
venue appropriate there under § 1391(b)(2). For the same reasons, and because most
witnesses and evidence likely are located in the Eastern District, defendants argue that
transfer under § 1404 is appropriate for the convenience of the parties and witnesses.
I agree with defendants that venue is not proper in this district. No known party
resides in this district and none of the events relevant to the case occurred here. Because
venue is proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, § 1391(b) requires that I transfer the
case there.
Plaintiff objects to transfer on two grounds: (1) he was unable to find a lawyer to
represent him in the Eastern District of Wisconsin; and (2) he wants to live in Minnesota,
which is closer to this district. However, the convenience of the plaintiff is not a factor that
I may consider under § 1391 when § 1391(b)(1) and (2) clearly point to a different district.
Leroy v. Great West United Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 185 (1979). See also Bates v. C & S
Adjusters, Inc., 980 F.2d 865, 867 (2d Cir. 1992) (“[P]laintiff's convenience [is] not a

2

relevant factor [under § 1391(b)].”); Nuckols v. Stevens, No. 2:14-CV-705-WKW, 2014
WL 5197205, at *4 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 14, 2014) (“[C]onvenience to the plaintiff is not a
factor bearing on the § 1391 analysis.”); Luderus v. U.S. Helicopters, Inc., No. 12-CV-5094,
2013 WL 677814, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 25, 2013) (Ҥ 1391(b)(1) reflects an obvious
Congressional desire to avoid inconvenience to defendants.”).
Even if I could consider plaintiff’s convenience, I still would conclude that transfer
is appropriate. First, plaintiff’s argument regarding his ability to find a lawyer in the Eastern
District is a nonstarter because plaintiff was unable to find a lawyer in this district either.
That is one of the reasons why I granted his motion for assistance in recruiting counsel.
Second, if plaintiff is living in Minnesota, he will have to travel a significant distance for
court hearings regardless whether the proceedings occur in Madison or Milwaukee.
Accordingly, I am granting defendants’ motion to transfer. If plaintiff still wants
court assistance in recruiting counsel, he should renew his motion with the court in the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to transfer filed by defendants David Beth, Brad
Heilet and Dave Lianeu, dkt. #41, is GRANTED. The clerk of court is directed to

3

TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
Entered this 1st day of February, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

4