Blackshear Julian v. Amin et al

Filing 33

ORDER granting defendants' 19 motion to transfer. This case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 6/4/2018. (jef),(ps) [Transferred from wiwd on 6/5/2018.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JULIAN R. BLACKSHEAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
TINA AMIN, SGT. JOHN/JANE DOE,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOHN/JANE DOE,
MARIANA TOKAR, MICHELLE WILINSKI,
MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR JOHN/JANE
DOE, MAINTENANCE WORK JOHN/JANE
DOE, MICHAEL MAYER, AMY EPPING,
MARCELO CASTILLO, STEPHANIE O’NEILL,
and CHARLES VENA,

OPINION & ORDER
17-cv-735-jdp

Defendants.
Pro se plaintiff Julian R. Blackshear is incarcerated at the Waupun Correctional
Institution (WCI). I granted him leave to proceed on Eighth Amendment claims against several
Racine Correctional Institution (RCI) officials who he alleges were deliberately indifferent to
the hazards present in his observation cell. Defendants have moved to transfer the case to the
Eastern District of Wisconsin. Dkt. 19. In a May 1, 2018 order, I instructed defendants to
respond to Blackshear’s allegations that he has been denied access to his legal materials and
the law library. I stayed consideration of defendants’ transfer motion pending defendants’
response.
Since then, defendants have responded, indicating that Blackshear was transferred from
RCI to WCI in early May and that he has access to his legal materials and the restrictive
housing unit law library at WCI. Blackshear has not replied to defendants’ response, even
though I gave him the opportunity to do so. It’s clear that he is capable of corresponding with

the court because he has filed another motion “to add defendants,” see Dkt. 27, and a notice
of his new address, see Dkt. 26. So I take his silence to mean that he agrees with defendants
that he now has access to his legal materials and the law library and that he does not wish to
supplement his response to defendants’ transfer motion. It does not appear that Blackshear’s
right of access to the court is being denied, so I will turn my attention to defendants’ motion
to transfer venue.
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 interest of justice. See Coffey v. Van Porn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219–
20 (7th Cir. 1986). “The statute permits a ‘flexible and individualized analysis.’” Research
Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973, 978 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)). The defendants bear the burden of
establishing that the transferee forum is clearly more convenient. Coffey, 796 F.2d at 219. The
parties do not dispute that venue is proper in both the Western District and the Eastern
District, so I will turn directly to the convenience and interest-of-justice inquiries.
The convenience inquiry “generally” focuses on “the availability of and access to
witnesses, and each party’s access to and distance from resources in each forum.” Research
Automation, 626 F.3d at 978. Defendants contend that the Eastern District, where RCI is
located, is clearly more convenient for the parties and witnesses because the events at issue
occurred there, the parties reside there, and many potential witnesses “are located” there. Dkt.
19, at 2. Blackshear does not dispute that these factors weigh in favor of transfer, but he stresses
that he chose to file in the Western District. “The plaintiff’s choice of forum is usually given
substantial weight,” although it “is given less deference ‘when another forum has a stronger

2

relationship to the dispute.’” Almond v. Pollard, No. 09-cv-335, 2010 WL 2024099, at *2 (W.D.
Wis. May 18, 2010) (quoting Amorose v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 521 F. Supp. 2d 731,
735 (N.D. Ill. 2007)).
The interest-of-justice inquiry “relates to the efficient administration of the court
system” and focuses on “factors including docket congestion and likely speed to trial in the
transferor and potential transferee forums, each court’s relative familiarity with the relevant
law, the respective desirability of resolving controversies in each locale, and the relationship of
each community to the controversy.” Research Automation, 626 F.3d at 978. “The interest of
justice may be determinative, warranting transfer or its denial even where the convenience of
the parties and witnesses points toward the opposite result.” Id. Defendants acknowledge that
the Eastern District and Western District share similar caseloads and similar time to trial; both
courts are familiar with the relevant law. They don’t argue the remaining factors.
Blackshear says he wants his case tried in the Western District “because of the ADR
Act Rule that the Western District has” (I take Blackshear to mean mediation) and because
fewer filings in the Western District mean his “case could be focused on more.” Dkt. 20, at 1.
But mediation is available in the Eastern District as well as the Western District, and as the
judicial caseload statistics provided by defendants indicate, each judge in the Eastern District
has fewer cases, on average, than each judge in the Western District. See Dkt. 19-1. Blackshear’s
case will receive adequate attention and an opportunity for mediation regardless of which
district it is litigated in. Thus, the interest of justice does not weigh for or against transfer.
Although Blackshear’s choice of forum is entitled to some deference, it appears that his choice
was based on misapprehensions about the number of cases per judge and the availability of
mediation in each district. I conclude that defendants have met their burden of showing that

3

Eastern District of Wisconsin is clearly more convenient. I will stay consideration of
Blackshear’s “motion to add defendants” pending transfer.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ motion to transfer, Dkt. 19, is GRANTED.
2. This case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Entered June 4, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

4