Williams, Derek v. Eckstein, Scott et al

Filing 24

ORDER granting Plaintiff Derek M. Williams's motion for leave to amend his complaint, Dkt. 19 ,. Williams's amended complaint, Dkt. 20 , is the operative pleading. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's order scre ening his complaint, Dkt. 19 , is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to transfer, Dkt. 13 , is GRANTED. 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 9/11/2018. (jef),(ps)

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

DEREK M. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SCOTT ECKSTEIN, CO STACY, CAPT. VAN LANEN,
LT. WICKMAN, and LT. EISINGER,

17-cv-414-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Derek M. Williams, appearing pro se, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at
the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility. He alleges that while he was incarcerated at the Green
Bay Correctional Institution, defendant prison officials failed to protect him from harming
himself and then forced him to be placed in a “restraint chair” even though it caused him harm.
Williams has filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, Dkt. 19, along with a
proposed amended complaint, Dkt. 20. The proposed change is minor: Williams seeks to
amend two paragraphs to change the identity of the person he says taunted him and then
placed him in five-point restraints on March 26, 2017. See Dkt. 20, ¶¶ 27, 28. He originally
named defendant Van Lanen as that official but now wishes to amend that to defendant
Eisinger. I will grant Williams’s motion, and consider the amended complaint to be the
operative pleading.
In the same motion, Williams states that the court incorrectly identified Van Lanen as
the official who told Williams “you will come to your senses soon enough, my staff get paid to
do what they do and starting tomorrow you’ll be in the chair for four hours instead of two.”
Both Williams’s original and amended complaints state that it was defendant Warden Eckstein
who said this. Dkt. 1, ¶ 32; Dkt. 20, ¶ 32. I will treat this argument as a motion to reconsider

the portion of the court’s order screening his complaint, and I will grant that motion. There
should no longer be any confusion about which claims Williams brings against each defendant.
Defendants have filed a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. 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 Dorn 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 proposed new venue is clearly more
convenient. Coffey, 796 F.2d at 219.
Defendants contend that transfer to the Eastern District, where GBCI is located, is
clearly more convenient for the parties and witnesses because the events at issue occurred there,
defendants reside there, and most potential witnesses—GBCI employees or health care
providers from a local hospital—likely reside there. These factors weigh heavily in favor of
transfer. Defendants stop short of saying that venue is improper in the Western District,
although it appears that it might be because defendants reside in the Eastern District and the
events at issue occurred there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). But even under a § 1404(a) analysis, I
conclude that transfer to the Eastern District is proper.
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 they and the potential witness are all
located in the Eastern District and the events at issue occurred there. Williams contends that

2

this court has litigated many cases involving events at GBCI, that he brings official-capacity
claims against the DOC, which is headquartered in Madison, and that defendants’ attorneys
are also headquartered in Madison.1
None of Williams’s arguments are persuasive. While this court has litigated many cases
involving events that took place at GBCI, the venue analysis in each case is specific to that
particular case, and in most cases the question is not contested. I must still apply the correct
§ 1404(a) analysis to each case in which venue is indeed contested. Williams states that he
brings official-capacity claims, but this is incorrect. I did not allow him to proceed on officialcapacity claims and his allegations do not support them. He specifically alleges that
“defendant[s’] decision to have [him] placed in the restraint chair was not a decision based on
any policy.” Dkt. 20, ¶ 40. Each of his claims are against defendants in their individual capacity.
And convenience to defendants’ counsel is simply not part of the transfer analysis. See, e.g., D5
Ironworks, Inc. v. Local 395 Ironworkers, No. 16 C 2163, 2016 WL 2733307, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May
11, 2016).
Although Williams does not stress this point, the major factor he has working in his
favor is that he picked 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
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,

1

In his response, Williams states that he did not receive a copy of the motion to transfer itself.
But defendants state that they gave Williams another copy, and Williams has not submitted
further argument.

3

735 (N.D. Ill. 2007)). But, despite Williams’s preference, the other factors discussed above
show that the Eastern District is a clearly more convenient forum.
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 submit statistics
showing that the Eastern District and Western District share similar caseloads. I have no doubt
that both courts are familiar with the relevant law. Defendants don’t argue the remaining
factors. The interests-of-justice factor does not weigh for or against transfer. Because I conclude
that the Eastern District is a clearly more convenient forum, I will grant defendants’ motion to
transfer.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Derek M. Williams’s motion for leave to amend his complaint, Dkt. 19, is
GRANTED. Williams’s amended complaint, Dkt. 20, is the operative pleading.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order screening his complaint,
Dkt. 19, is GRANTED.

4

3. Defendants’ motion to transfer, Dkt. 13, is GRANTED. This case is transferred to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Entered September 11, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

5