Czapiewski, David et al v. Thomas, Kurt et al

Filing 61

ORDER granting 59 Motion to Transfer to Eastern District of Wisconsin; denying 60 Motion for Use of Release Account Funds. The clerk of court is directed to TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 4/6/2016. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DAVID CZAPIEWSKI, ANTHONY RIACH,
LARRY ANDREWS, MATTHEW REILLY,
DAVID THOMAS, MICHAEL CONNELY,
JACOB DIETRICH, DONTRELL ANDERSON
and WILLIAM ZIEMER,

OPINION AND ORDER
15-cv-654-bbc

Plaintiffs,
v.
KURT THOMAS, JESSIE RHINES
JOHN DOE #2, JOHN DOE #3,
JOHN DOE #4 and JOHN DOE #5.
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiffs David Czapiewski, Anthony Riach, Larry Andrews, Matthew Reilly, David
Thomas, Michael Connely, Jacob Dietrich, Dontrell Anderson and William Ziemer, all of
whom are inmates at the Wisconsin Resource Center, have filed this suit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. They assert that various members of the Resource Center’s medical
staff—defendants Kurt Thomas, Jessie Rhines and John Does ##2-5—violated plaintiffs’
Eighth Amendment rights by knowingly exposing them to a risk of contracting Hepatitis C
from a fellow inmate. Two motions are pending in this case: defendants’ motion to transfer
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and plaintiff David Thomas’s motion for access to his
release account. I am granting defendants’ motion to transfer, which is unopposed, and
denying plaintiff Thomas’s motion for access to his release account.

1

OPINION
A. Defendants’ Motion to Transfer
On February 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to transfer this case to the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, which is where plaintiffs are incarcerated and where the
events in question occurred. Although it was unopposed, I denied plaintiffs’ motion to
transfer on the ground that, generally speaking, objections to venue must be raised by
defendants. Olberding v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 346 U.S. 338, 340 (1953) (“The
plaintiff, by bringing suit in a district other than that authorized by the statute, relinquished
his right to object to the venue.”). Now defendants have filed their own motion to transfer,
which plaintiffs do not oppose. After reviewing defendant’s motion and supporting materials,
I conclude that transfer to the Eastern District of Wisconsin is warranted.
Defendants ask that I transfer this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which
provides that “for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a
district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might
have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” In
considering convenience, § 1404(a) “requires the court to consider 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.” Almond v. Pollard, No. 09-cv-335-bbc, 2010 WL
2024099, at *2 (W.D. Wis. May 18, 2010). Here, the events giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims
occurred at the Wisconsin Resource Center, which is located in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin. Moreover, the defendants, six of eight named plaintiffs and a majority of the

2

probable witnesses—employees at the Wisconsin Resource Center—are located in the
Eastern District. Finally, although plaintiffs originally filed suit in this district, plaintiffs
have reconsidered their choice of forum and now agree with defendants that this case should
be transferred to the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
The “interest of justice” inquiry under § 1404(a), which focuses on the “efficient
administration of the court system” and whether transfer “would insure or hinder a speedy
trial,” id., also weighs in favor of transferring this case. This case is still in its early stages
and there are no significant motions under consideration that might counsel against transfer
to a new court. Additionally, the Eastern District of Wisconsin’s civil docket is comparable
to the Western District of Wisconsin’s when it comes to the number of cases pending per
judge and the median amount of time between filing and disposition.
Accordingly, I am granting defendants’ motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a) and transferring this case to the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

B. Plaintiff Thomas’s Motion for Access to Release Account
The other matter pending is plaintiff David Thomas’s motion for an order authorizing
him to use the funds in his prison release account for copies, postage and filing fees related
to this action. I am denying this motion. Prison officials are responsible for adopting and
implementing rules governing when and how prisoners’ release account funds may be used.
A district court has very limited authority to interfere with this aspect of prison
administration. Mosby v. Wommack, No. 08-cv-677-bbc, 2009 WL 2488011 (W.D. Wis.

3

Aug. 12, 2009) (“[W]ith the exception of initial partial payments, I do not have the
authority to tell state officials whether and to what extent a prisoner should be able to
withdraw money from his release account.”); Artis v. Meisner, No. 12-cv-589-wmc, 2015
WL 5749785, at *5-6 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 30, 2015) (“Absent some authority requiring the
prison to disburse [plaintiff’s] release account funds, the court declines to interfere in the
administration of Wisconsin state prisons.”).

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. The motion to transfer filed by defendants Kurt Thomas and Jessie Rhines, dkt.
#59, is GRANTED. The clerk of court is directed to TRANSFER this case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
2. Plaintiff David Thomas’s motion for release of account funds, dkt. #60, is
DENIED.
Entered this 6th day of April, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

4