Opinion
CIV-23-687-R
12-29-2023
DEWAYNE LEWIS DUDLEY, Plaintiff, v. LSCI BUTNER, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUZANNE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Dewayne Lewis Dudley, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of gender-affirming procedures and items-“[b]reast augmentation, facial feminization[,] hair extensions, mascara, [and] a nightgown”-by prison officials at the Federal Correctional Complex in Butner, North Carolina, in violation of the Eighth, Fourteenth, and First Amendments. Docs. 21, at 1 & 24, at 2.Plaintiff alleges this denial causes “throbbing headaches and great anxiety” due to gender dysphoria. Doc. 21, at 2-3. United States District Judge David L. Russell referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 13. After screening Plaintiff's amended complaint alleging constitutional violations by Butner prison officials, Doc. 21, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by December 6, 2023, as to why this case should not be transferred to North Carolina. Doc. 22. To date, Plaintiff has not done so.The undersigned therefore recommends the transfer of this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
The Court construes Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and Enjoin as the amended complaint. Doc. 21. The amended complaint supersedes Plaintiff's previous filings. See, e.g., Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991) (“[A]n amended complaint ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.”).
Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless otherwise indicated.
The Court's show-cause order was mailed to Plaintiff's current facility in Ayer, Massachusetts on November 30, 2023. Plaintiff has since filed three letters, but none of those address the Court's show-cause order or explain why this case should not be transferred. See Docs. 24-26.
I. Screening.
Federal law requires the Court to screen complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss any frivolous or malicious claim, any claim asking for monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief, or any claim on which the Court cannot grant relief. Id. § 1915A(b).
One aspect of screening is reviewing whether venue is proper “when the defense is obvious from the face of the complaint and no further factual record is required to be developed.” Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fratus v. DeLand, 49 F.3d 673, 674 (10th Cir. 1995)). “[T]he court acting on its own motion, may raise the issue of whether a change of venue would be in the interest of justice.” Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. v. Oakview Constr., Inc., No. CIV-10-235-D, 2010 WL 4811450, at *6 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 19, 2010); see also Trujillo, 465 F.3d at 1222 (“A court may sua sponte cure jurisdictional and venue defects by transferring a suit under the federal transfer statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a) and 1631, when it is in the interests of justice.”).
II. Analysis.
Plaintiff alleges constitutional violations by prison officials at the Butner Correctional Facility, located in Granville County, North Carolina, which is in the Eastern District of North Carolina. See 28 U.S.C. § 113(a); FCI Butner Low, FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/buf/ (last visited Dec. 7, 2023). In response to the Court's order to show cause as to why this action should not be transferred to that venue, Plaintiff filed two letters elaborating on previous claims and indicating Plaintiff had been transferred away from Butner to a medical facility.Docs. 24-25.
The undersigned takes judicial notice of the location of Butner within Granville County in the state of North Carolina. See Fed.R.Evid. 201(b); see also United States v. Piggie, 622 F.2d 486, 488 (10th Cir. 1980) (“Geography has long been peculiarly susceptible to judicial notice for the obvious reason that geographic locations are facts which are not generally controversial ....”).
Those letters were mailed from Ayer, Massachusetts. Docs. 24, Ex. 1 & 25, Ex. 1. The Court's own review confirms Plaintiff is currently being held at FMC Devens, in Ayer, Massachusetts. Inmate Locator, FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Dec. 29, 2023); see United States v. Muskett, 970 F.3d 1233, 1237 n.4 (10th Cir. 2020) (taking judicial notice of inmate's status according to the Bureau of Prisons' Inmate Locator).
“[T]he term ‘venue' refers to the geographic specification of the proper court or courts for the litigation of a civil action . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1390(a). The proper venue for a plaintiffs case is where the events giving rise to the claims occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (“A civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.”). “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district . . . where it might have been brought . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see Anderson v. Wilkinson, No. CIV-15-1224-W, 2016 WL 324979, at *2 n.4 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 27, 2016) (“[T]itle 28, section 1404(a) of the United States Code permits the Court to transfer an action if the parties and witnesses would not be inconvenienced and if a transfer would better serve the interest of justice.”). It appears Plaintiff's case was originally transferred to this Court based on the first complaint. See Docs. 1, 10. Because Plaintiff's operative pleading is now centered on events that took place in Butner, North Carolina, the undersigned “finds a transfer not only would enhance the convenience of the parties and the witnesses, but also advance the interest of justice.” Anderson, 2016 WL 324979, at *2 n.4; see also Bruton v. Allbaugh, No. CIV-17-136-D, 2017 WL 1744136, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 5, 2017) (recommending transfer of an action to the district that had “significantly greater ties to the events underlying Plaintiffs claims and the persons allegedly responsible for, or having knowledge about, those events”), adopted, 2017 WL 1745613 (W.D. Okla. May 3, 2017).
Based on the amended complaint, it appears that every “part of the events or omissions giving rise to [Plaintiff's] claim[s] occurred” at the Federal Correctional Facility in Butner, North Carolina. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). As well, the undersigned finds it likely that the Defendants, who all appear to be either employed by or associated with the Butner Correctional Facility, reside in or near Granville County, North Carolina as well. See Doc. 21, at 1. Thus, venue is proper in that court. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2).
III. Recommendation and notice of right to object.
The undersigned recommends the Court transfer this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
The undersigned advises Plaintiff of the right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court on or before January 19, 2024, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). The undersigned further advises Plaintiff that failure to file a timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives his right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues and terminates the referral to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.