Walton v. United States of America

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph on April 4, 2018 DENYING 11 Motion to Transfer Case. (cc: all counsel) (cc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MILWAUKEE DIVISION
LAMAR WALTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-CV-1430

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Defendant.

ORDER
Lamar Walton brings this lawsuit against the United States of America under the
Federal Tort Claims Act. He alleges that medical personnel at a federal prison in the Eastern
District of Arkansas where he was incarcerated failed to provide him adequate follow-up
care after a corneal transplant of his right eye and that as a result, he suffered severe vision
loss in his right eye. The United States of America moves to transfer venue of the lawsuit to
the Eastern District of Arkansas under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case to another district where the
action may have been brought if transfer serves the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and will promote the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The parties do not dispute that
venue is proper in both the Eastern District of Wisconsin and the Eastern District of
Arkansas. Accordingly, I need only address whether transfer would serve the convenience
of the parties and witnesses and promote the interests of justice. The convenience inquiry
requires consideration of the situs of material events, ease of access to sources of proof,
including the location of the parties and the witnesses, and plaintiff's choice of forum.
Harley–Davidson, Inc. v. Columbia Tristar Homes Video, Inc., 851 F.Supp. 1265, 1269 (E.D.

Wis. 1994); Kinney v. Anchorlock Corp., 736 F.Supp. 818, 829 (N.D. Ill. 1990). The “interest
of justice” analysis focuses on whether transfer would promote the “efficient administration
of the court system,” including whether transfer would insure or hinder a speedy trial. Coffey
v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 221 ( 7th Cir. 1986). As the movant in this case, the
United States bears the burden of establishing that the transferee forum is clearly more
convenient. Id. at 219.
I begin with the convenience inquiry. The plaintiff’s choice of forum is usually given
substantial weight, particularly if it is also the plaintiff’s home forum. However, the
plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less deference when the incident underlying the
complaint did not occur in the chosen forum. In this case, the Eastern District of Wisconsin
is Walton’s home, but the events underlying the complaint occurred in the federal prison in
the Eastern District of Arkansas. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
As for the ease of access to proof, given today’s technology, access to documents
would not be an inconvenience to either party. This is not a case where it is necessary to
visit the sight of the incident. Accordingly, this consideration does not tip the scale in favor
of either location.
The heart of the dispute on the convenience inquiry is which district is more
convenient for the parties and witnesses. The United States maintains that all of the
witnesses that might be called at trial reside in the Eastern District of Arkansas or in nearby
Memphis Tennessee. It, therefore, argues that keeping the case in this district would be
expensive and unnecessarily time consuming. (Gov’t Br. at 4, Docket # 12.)
Walton argues, as already stated, that he resides in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
He further argues that because of his loss of vision and his lack of employment, travelling

2

would be difficult for him. Additionally, he argues that his treating physician who will
testify in support of his claim resides in this district. Finally, Walton anticipates calling as
witnesses family and friends who can attest to the impact his blindness has had on his life
and ability to work. Because of all this, he argues that transferring venue to the Eastern
District of Arkansas would create significant financial and logistical burden on his ability to
prosecute his claim. (Pl.’s Br. at 4, Docket # 13.)
Given that either side will have to travel and suffer the inconveniences and expenses
associated with travel, this becomes a question of which side would be more inconvenienced
and financially burdened. Though a close call, it appears that Walton and his witnesses
would be more inconvenienced. In addition to Walton being unemployed, his blindness
would make it difficult for him to travel. Further, unlike the United States’ witnesses whose
travel expenses would be covered by their employer, Walton’s witnesses, his treating
physician and family members, would have to cover their own costs of travel. I also
consider that this is not a case where the United States will have to produce inmates to
testify and be burdened by the security risks associated with the transportation of inmates.
The United States’ witnesses are the medical professionals of the prison or contracted by the
prison. Also, as the party with the burden of proof at trial, Walton is more likely to be
prejudiced if he cannot get his witnesses to travel to the Eastern District of Arkansas to
testify. Accordingly, the defendants have not shown that the Eastern District of Arkansas is
the more convenient location for all or most of the witnesses. Thus, this factor weighs
against transfer.
The “interests of justice” analysis focuses on whether transfer would promote the
“efficient administration of the court system,” including whether transfer would insure or

3

hinder a speedy trial. Coffey, 796 F.2d at 221. The interests of justice may be determinative
in a particular case, even if the convenience of the parties and witnesses might call for a
different result. Id. at 220.
The United States correctly argues that this lawsuit is in its early stage and that there
are no significant motions under consideration weighing against transfer of venue. As for
the efficient administration of justice, the United States submits that the two districts offer
competing advantages. Citing to the Federal Court Management Statistics, the United
States submits that the Eastern District of Wisconsin reaches civil dispositions faster, but the
Eastern District of Arkansas brings cases to civil trial more quickly. In my view, because the
districts offer competing advantages, neither keeping the case in this district nor transferring
it to the Eastern District of Arkansas would hinder the interest of justice.
In the end, balancing the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of
justice, I am not persuaded the United States has shown that the scale tips in favor of
transfer to the Eastern District of Arkansas. I appreciate that the underlying incident
occurred in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Though this is an important consideration, it is
not the only factor to consider. I also appreciate that having this case in this district poses
inconveniences to the United States’ witnesses all or most who are medical personnel at the
federal prison in Eastern District of Arkansas. Though the determination on the
convenience to the parties is close, the financial and logistical burden that travel would
impose on Walton and his witnesses tips the scale against transfer. For these reasons, I will
deny the United States’ motion to transfer venue of this case to the Eastern District of
Arkansas.

4

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this day of April 2018
s/Nancy Joseph_____________
NANCY JOSEPH
United States Magistrate Judge

5