Opinion
3:03-CV-3048-N
February 3, 2004
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, the subject cause has been referred to the United States magistrate judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Type of Case: This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner.
Parties: Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Hampden County House of Corrections in Ludlow, Massachusetts. Defendants are the Hampden County House of Corrections, Sheriff Michael J. Asher, Vocational Manager James L. Gill, and Assistant Superintendent William Toller. The Court has not issued process.
Statement of Case: The amended complaint alleges Defendants have repeatedly accused Plaintiff of stealing supplies at the jail, have conspired to violate his civil rights, and have placed him on psychiatric medication and observation in connection with his Martian claims and American space exploration claims. Plaintiff requests that two Hampden County officers be ordered to go to his house, which is only two minutes away from the jail, to pick up "Martian maps, Martian charts, Martian location patterns, and Martian graphs." (Amended complaint at 5). He also requests monetary damages.
Findings and Conclusions: 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which governs venue of a federal cause of action, provides in pertinent part as follows:
(b) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (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) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
Venue does not lie in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The events giving rise to Plaintiff's cause of action occurred in Massachusetts, and involve primarily employees of the Hampden County House of Correction.
Even if Plaintiff could establish diversity jurisdiction (Amended Complaint at 1-2), venue is still improper in the Northern District of Texas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).
When venue is improper in a particular district, the court has the option of dismissing the case, or if it is in the interest of justice, to transfer the case to any district in which it could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Section 1406(a) provides as follows:
The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.
`"The district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to order a transfer.'" Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1067 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Caldwell v. Palmetto State Sav. Bank Of S. Carolina, 811 F.2d 916, 919 (5th Cir. 1987)); accord Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp. Inc., 886 F.2d 758, 761 (5th Cir. 1989).
In this case the interests of justice may be best served by requiring Plaintiff to begin anew in the proper forum. Therefore, the District Court should dismiss this case for lack of proper venue.
RECOMMENDATION:
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that this action be dismissed for lack of proper venue.
The Clerk will mail a copy of this recommendation to Plaintiff.
NOTICE
In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this recommendation. Pursuant toDouglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n. 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de novo determination by the district judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the district court.