Opinion
No. 07-14818.
July 22, 2008
Charles Barney #574515 PARR HIGHWAY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ADRIAN, MI.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
I. BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiff filed this pro se action on November 8, 2007. Plaintiff is currently an inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"). The Amended Complaint alleges deliberate indifference and denial of adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Amended Complaint makes allegations against two sets of defendants. The first group of defendants includes Carmen Palmer, Julie Saladin, David DeGraaf, Haresh Pandya, and George Pramstaller ("MDOC Defendants"). The second group of defendants includes Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Craig Hutchinson, Christine Meyer, and Brendan Sherry ("Medical Defendants").
This action is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk's Report and Recommendation ("R R") [Docket # 27, filed May 13, 2008], which recommends that the MDOC Defendants' Motion to Change Venue [Docket # 24, filed April 22, 2008] be granted. Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the R R.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
III. ANALYSIS
28 U.S.C. § 636 28 U.S.C. § 636Id.28 U.S.C. § 102 Id. 28 U.S.C. § 102
The MDOC Defendants move to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, arguing that the Court should transfer this case to the Western District of Michigan for the convenience of the parties, as most of Defendants appear to reside in the Western District. (MDOC Defs.' Mot. at 2.) Defendants also claim that all interactions between Plaintiff and Defendants occurred in the Western District. ( Id.)
The R R concludes that a transfer of venue to the Western District of Michigan is proper. (R R at 5.) Although the MDOC Defendants' Motion references § 1404, the R R concludes that transfer is more appropriate under § 1406, because the Eastern District does not appear to be a proper venue, and because a court may sua sponte transfer venue. ( Id. at 4 (citing Carver v. Knox County, Tenn., 887 F.2d 1287, 1291 (6th Cir. 1989).) The Court agrees.
Venue in a federal question case lies in the district in which any defendants reside or in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Public officials "reside" in the county in which they serve for purposes of venue in a suit challenging official acts. Wichert v. Caruso, 2007 WL 2904053, *at 3 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 2, 2007).
Here, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that venue is proper within this District. Defendants reside in Ionia County, Michigan, where they all work at the RCF and are employed by Defendant Correctional Medical Services. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6-9.) Further, the events that give rise to this case transpired in Ionia County. Accordingly, this matter is transferred to the Western District of Michigan pursuant to § 1406.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk's Report and Recommendation [Docket # 27] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court's findings and conclusions of law with respect to Defendants' Motion to Change Venue.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Change Venue [Docket # 24] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is transferred to the Western District of Michigan.