Opinion
Civil Action No. 20-143J
08-17-2020
SHAHEED KELLY, and HAKEEM HARRIS, Plaintiffs, v. PA DOC, SUPERINTENDENT LAMAS, UNIT MANAGER CONNOR COUNCIL, SECURITY CAPTAIN EASON, MS. QUINN, Grievance Coordinator, MR. SHELBY, Maintenance Supervisor, Defendants.
District Judge Stephanie L. Haines/Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this prisoner civil rights action be transferred forthwith to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where venue is proper because all of the claims concern events that took place at the State Correctional Institution in Chester ("SCI-Chester"), which is located within the territorial limits of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "Eastern District").
SCI-Chester is located at 500 E. 4th Street, Chester, PA 19013, which is located in Delaware County. Delaware County is within the territorial confines of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C.A. § 118(a) (setting forth which counties of Pennsylvania are located in which federal districts). See https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Chester.aspx (site last visited 8/17/2020).
II. REPORT
A. Background
Shaheed Kelly ("Kelly"), and Hakeem Harris ("Harris"), (collectively "Plaintiffs"), have filed a civil rights action against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") and several of DOC's employees for a broken ventilation system. The broken ventilation system occurred in May 2019 at SCI-Chester. Apparently, at the time giving rise to the events, Plaintiffs were cell mates at SCI-Chester. Since that time, it appears that Kelly is now housed in the State Correctional Institution at Somerset, Pennsylvania. ECF No. 5 ¶ 3. Harris is now housed at the State Correctional Institution at Benner Township, Pennsylvania. Id. ¶ 4. Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se. Because the Complaint concerns events solely arising at SCI-Chester which is within the territorial confines of the Eastern District, this case should be transferred forthwith to the Eastern District as venue is proper there and improper here.
B. Venue is Proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In the Complaint, Plaintiffs specifically invoke 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that their rights were violated under the Eighth Amendment by the breakdown of the ventilation system at SCI-Chester. Id. ¶ 1 (invoking Section 1983); ¶¶ 22 - 23 (invoking Eighth Amendment).
As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has observed, "[s]ection 1983 contains no special venue provision. Therefore, the general venue provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 apply." Urrutia v. Harrisburg County Police Dept., 91 F.3d 451, 462 (3d Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Section 1391 provides in relevant part that:
(b) Venue in general. --A civil action may be brought in--
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
(2) 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; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
The Complaint, in its caption, names six defendants: the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; Superintendent Lamas, who was, apparently at the time, Superintendent of SCI-Chester; Unit Manager Connor Council; Security Captain Eason; Grievance Coordinator Ms. Quinn; and Maintenance Supervisor Mr. Shelby. Given that five of the six defendants worked at SCI-Chester, it is likely that they reside in close proximity to SCI-Chester and thus, they likely reside within the Eastern District. At the very least, they do not reside within the Western District of Pennsylvania.
See https://www.media.pa.gov/pages/corrections_details.aspx?newsid=250 (announcing appointment of Lamas as superintendent of SCI-Chester) (site last visited 8/17/2020).
It now appears that Kenneth Eason is the current Superintendent of SCIChester.
https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Chester.aspx (site last visited 8/17/2020).
In addition, it appears that not only a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred" in the Eastern District but all of the events or omissions occurred at SCI-Chester in the Eastern District. As such, it appears that venue is proper in the Eastern District.
A District Court is granted discretion to sua sponte transfer cases by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) which provides in relevant part that "[f]or 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[.]" See Robinson v. Town of Madison, 752 F.Supp. 842, 846 (N.D. Ill. 1990) ("A court's authority to transfer cases under § 1404(a) does not depend upon the motion, stipulation or consent of the parties to the litigation."). See also Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fogel, 656 F.3d 167, 171 (3d Cir. 2011), as amended (Dec. 9, 2011) ("Ferens also makes plain that the Van Dusen rule applies to sua sponte transfers, such as occurred here" pursuant to Section 1404(a)).
Thus, the Court is presented with the question of whether transfer to the Eastern District is "for the convenience of the parties and witnesses [and] in the interest of justice." In performing this analysis, the courts may rely upon traditional venue considerations.
In ruling on § 1404(a) motions,
courts have considered a host of factors that flesh out the considerations enunciated in the statute (convenience of parties, convenience of witnesses, and the interest of justice). The analysis is flexible and must be made on the unique facts of each case. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 249-50, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981). In Gulf Oil v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1946), the United States Supreme Court listed two sets of factors that should be considered in deciding a transfer request. The Gulf Oil factors fall into two broad categories. One category is factors relating to the private interests of the parties to the litigation, including: the plaintiff's choice of forum, ease of access to sources of proof, availability of compulsory process over unwilling witnesses, obstacles to a fair trial and "all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive." Id. at 508. The other category consists of factors involving the public interests in administration of the courts and adjudication of cases, including: court congestion and other administrative difficulties, placing the burden of jury duty on those having the closest ties to the action, local interests in having cases adjudicated at home, and familiarity of the forum court with the applicable law. See id. at 508-09.Sanchez v. Coleman, No. 2:13-CV-0982, 2014 WL 7392400, at *12 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2014).
Having given due consideration to all of the above factors, it is this Court's considered opinion that these factors weigh in favor of sua sponte transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania especially because all of the events giving rise to this case occurred in the Eastern District and none of the events occurred within this District. See, e.g., Davis v. Regan, 872 F.2d 1025 (Table), 1989 WL 40200, at *1 (6th Cir. 1989) (affirming sua sponte pre service dismissal on grounds of improper venue).
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis set forth above, it is respectfully recommended that this action be transferred forthwith to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2. Dated: August 17, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
/s/_________
MAUREEN P. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE cc: The Honorable Stephanie L. Haines
United States District Judge
SHAHEED KELLY
MT-2667
SCI Somerset
1600 Walter Mill Road
Somerset, PA 15510
HAKEEM HARRIS
MU-9397
SCI Benner
301 Institution Dr.
Benner Township, PA 16823