Opinion
Civil Action 5:24-cv-00250-TES-TQL
10-24-2024
AMMON RA SUMRALL, Plaintiff, v. DR. THOMAS SCHOBURG, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
The Northern District of Georgia transferred this case to this Court on July 25, 2024, but then vacated its transfer order on October 23, 2024. See [Doc. 3]; Order, Sumrall v. Schoburg, 1:24-cv-2990-VCM (N.D.Ga. Oct. 23, 2024); see also Daker v. Bryson, 841 Fed.Appx. 115, 124 (11th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted) (recognizing that a transferor court retains jurisdiction to reconsider its own transfer order). Because of the vacatur, the Court now TRANSFERS this case back to the Northern District of Georgia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Since the case is already opened there, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close this case.
SO ORDERED
ORDER
Victoria Marie Calvert United States District Judge
Plaintiff Ammon Ra Sumrall, an inmate at Wilcox State Prison in Abbeville, Georgia, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining that various officials and medical practitioners were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.Wilcox State Prison is located in the Middle District of Georgia, and the Magistrate Judge determined that the interests of justice required that this matter be transferred there.
Plaintiff has also raised related state law claims.
Plaintiff has now filed objections (Doc. 4) to the Magistrate Judge's order in which he complains that a magistrate judge does not have the authority to transfer a case. He also points out that one of the Defendants is an Atlanta physician who performed a procedure on Plaintiff in Atlanta and that procedure, in part, gave rise to Plaintiff's claims. He thus contends that venue is proper in this District.
While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) allows a federal magistrate judge to issue pretrial orders that are “not dispositive of a party's claim or defense,” which includes the authority transfer a case to another district court, In re Early, No. 2:21-CV-0029-SCJ-JCF, 2021 WL 2636020, at *1 (N.D.Ga. Apr. 20, 2021) (quoting Murray v. Buss, No. 5:11cv269/MMP/EMT, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89706, at *2-3 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2011) (listing cases)), this Court nonetheless determines that the transfer in this instance was not properly effected.
The transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404, allows for the transfer of a matter “in the interest of justice” to any district where a case could have been filed. However, before a court may sua sponte transfer a case, the parties to the action must be given an opportunity to be heard on the issue.
Notably, there is a “long-approved practice of permitting a court to transfer a case sua sponte under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a),” but only “so long as the parties are first given the opportunity to present their views on the issue.” Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). Before transferring sua sponte under section 1404(a), “the judge should, at minimum, issue an order to show cause why the case should not be transferred, and thereby afford the parties an opportunity to state their reasons.” Starnes v. Small, 512 F.2d 918, 934 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Notice is required even though “[d]istrict courts [are] given more discretion to transfer under § 1404(a) than they had to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens.” Piper Aircraf[ Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 236 (1981)]Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321, 1336 (11th Cir. 2011).
This Court further notes that, because one of the Defendants resides in, and material events allegedly occurred in, this District-combined with the fact that counsel for many Middle District Defendants will likely be employed by the Office of the Georgia Attorney General who are based in this District-it is not yet clear that the interests of justice truly do mandate that this matter be transferred. See also Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F.3d 253, 260 (11th Cir. 1996) (noting that a plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed unless it is clearly outweighed by other factors).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections (Doc. 4) are SUSTAINED, and the Magistrate Judge's order transferring this matter (Doc. 3) is hereby VACATED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this order to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia and to work with that court to reinstate this Court's jurisdiction over this matter. Upon the return of this matter to this Court, the Clerk is further DIRECTED to submit this matter to the Magistrate Judge.
This matter having been decided, Plaintiff's motion to rule on his objections (Doc. 5) is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED