Tackett, Timothy v. Litscher, Jon et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting 33 Motion to Transfer to Eastern District of Wisconsin. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 02/15/2019. (rks),(ps)

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

TIMOTHY G. TACKETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CATHY JESS, PAUL KEMPER, L. BARTOW,
L. ALSUM, E. DAVIDSON, L. LEBLANC,
G. BORNICK, KEVIN KREMBS,
KRISTEN VASQUEZ, CANDICE WHITMAN,
LAURA FRAZIER, MS. LYYSKI, CHARLES LARSON,
and JULIE LUDWIG,

ORDER
18-cv-224-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Timothy Tackett, appearing pro se, is a prisoner at Fox Lake Correctional
Institution (FLCI). He alleges that staff at FLCI and at his previous prison, Racine Correctional
Institution (RCI), ignored his need for medical treatment, and that as a result, his foot is
permanently disfigured.
Defendants have filed a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Dkt. 33. 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 (1) serves the
convenience of the parties and witnesses; and (2) 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 defendant bears the burden of establishing that the proposed new venue is clearly more
convenient. Coffey, 796 F.2d at 219. I conclude that transfer to the Eastern District is proper,
and I will grant the motion.

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 transfer to the Eastern District, where
both FLCI and RCI are located, is more convenient for the parties and witnesses because the
events at issue occurred there, plaintiff resides there, and most defendants and potential
witnesses reside there.
Tackett contends that the Eastern District is not more convenient because some of the
defendants live in the Western District, and because FLCI is equally close to either district’s
courthouse. But only three defendants (complaint examiners at DOC headquarters) work in
this district, and their involvement with the facts of the case is not as significant as the 11
defendants that work in the Eastern District. And RCI (where Tackett was first injured) is
much closer to the Eastern District’s courthouse in Milwaukee, as are Tackett’s off-site
healthcare providers, who are not defendants but will almost certainly be called as witnesses.
Tackett also says 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 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)). Although I am sympathetic to Tackett’s desire to
choose the court he litigates in, the Eastern District (where Tackett injured himself, was denied
treatment, and eventually received surgery) has a stronger relationship to the dispute. Overall,
the Eastern District is a more convenient forum.
The second part of my analysis is the interest-of-justice inquiry. It “relates to the
efficient administration of the court system” and focuses on “factors including docket

2

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 filed their motion to transfer on the same day as their answer. There has
not yet been a scheduling conference and there are no pending motions, so transferring the
case will not throw a wrench in the proceedings. Defendants submit statistics showing that the
Eastern District and Western District share similar caseloads, and I have no doubt that both
courts are familiar with the relevant law. Defendants do not 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 more convenient forum, I will grant defendants’ motion to transfer.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion for change of venue, Dkt. 33, 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 February 15, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3