Adams v. Hepp et al

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 10/2/2018 DENYING 49 Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Paul Adams at Jackson Correctional Institution) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
PAUL ALLEN ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-699-pp

RANDALL R. HEPP, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (DKT. NO. 49)
______________________________________________________________________________
On August 27, 2018, the court issued an order, allowing the plaintiff to
proceed against defendants Larson, Truen, Hepp, Whitman, Floeter, Frank,
Henrich, DeBrees and Dawn P. on claims that they were deliberately indifferent
to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Dkt. No.
48.
Three days later, the court received from the plaintiff a motion asking the
court to transfer this case to the Western District of Wisconsin. Dkt. No. 49. He
explains that he now is in custody at Jackson Correctional Institution, in the
Western District of Wisconsin, and that one or more of the defendants are in
the Western District. Id. at 1. The plaintiff also explains that he plans to file a
complaint against Jackson officials because they are allegedly refusing to treat
his well-documented medical issues. Id. at 1-2. The plaintiff alleges that he is
suffering from hypoglycemic crashes, constipation, sleep deprivation, and
bloody and painful bowel movements. Id. at 2. He also asserts that he is
receiving less food than general population inmates and has lost twenty
1

pounds in three weeks. Id. He states that Jackson officials are accusing him of
faking his symptoms and telling him that previous diagnoses by other health
officials were wrong. Id.
The plaintiff has raised two different issues in his motion. First, he
indicates that he wants the court to transfer this case, against these
defendants (all of whom were employed at the Fox Lake Correctional Center), to
the federal court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The Fox Lake
Correctional Center, however, is in Dodge County, which is in the Eastern
District of Wisconsin. See http://www.wied.uscourts.gov/counties-serveddivision. Under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), a plaintiff may bring a civil case 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
(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 defendant is subject to the court’s personal
jurisdiction with respect to such action.
The events the plaintiff described in his complaint in this case
took place at Fox Lake, in the Eastern District. While the plaintiff
states in his motion that “one or more” of the defendants in this case
“are in the Western District now,” he does not identify those
defendants, or say what makes him believe that they now are in the
Western District. Given that the events that gave rise to this case took
place in the Eastern District, and that at least some, if not most, of the
2

defendants are located in the Eastern District, venue for this case is
proper in the Eastern District.
Second, the plaintiff says that he wants to file a second complaint,
alleging that staff at Jackson are violating his civil rights. The plaintiff has the
right to file suit against people at Jackson if he has facts to show that they are
violating his rights, but as he appears to realize, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 and
20, he can’t sue those defendants in this case. Because Jackson is located in
the Western District, and because the staff there likely live in the Western
District, he should sue for any events that took place at Jackson in the
Western District. The fact that he wants to do that, however, is not a basis for
transferring venue for this case. The court understands why the plaintiff may
prefer to litigate both cases in the same district, but that preference is not
sufficient grounds for the court to grant his motion.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to change venue. Dkt. No. 49.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 2nd day of October, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

3