Dallas v. County of Milwaukee et al

Filing 53

ORDER granting 28 motion to transfer filed by defendants David Clarke and Milwaukee County. The clerk of court is directed to transfer thiscase to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 5/3/2017. (jef),(ps) [Transferred from wiwd on 5/4/2017.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAPONZA MONROE DALLAS,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
16-cv-720-bbc
v.
THE COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE
and DAVID CLARKE,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff Laponza Monroe Dallas is proceeding on a claim that defendants
David Clarke and Milwaukee County are violating plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by
failing to provide treatment for plaintiff’s persistent vomiting. Several motions are now
before the court: (1) plaintiff’s “motion to supplement a new claim,” dkt. #15; (2) plaintiff’s
“motion for emergency order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35,” dkt. #23; (3)
defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Wisconsin, dkt. #28; (4)
plaintiff’s “motion to allow plaintiff to proceed on appeal under continued imminent danger
of physical injury and to proceed under in forma pauperis,” dkt. #30; (5) plaintiff’s request
for a legal loan, dkt. #34; and (6) defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, dkt. ##36 and
41.
It makes sense to address the motion to transfer first. If the case should have been
filed in a different district, then that court should have the opportunity in the first instance
1

to decide the substantive motions.
Defendants argue that the case should be transferred because all of the known parties
reside in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, making venue appropriate there under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b)(1), and the events giving rise to this case occurred in that district, making venue
appropriate there under 28 U.S.C. § 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 28 U.S.C. § 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.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to transfer filed by defendants David Clarke and
Milwaukee County, dkt. #28, is GRANTED. The clerk of court is directed to transfer this
case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Entered this 3d day of May, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge
2