Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:15-CV-896-MHT [WO]
12-07-2015
COURTNEY BOYD, #208 921, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Plaintiff challenges matters regarding his arrest on theft charges at a Wal-Mart store in Mobile, Alabama, and his subsequent detention in the Mobile County Jail because of those charges. Mobile, Alabama, is within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
Upon review of the factual allegations in the complaint, the court concludes this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
Plaintiff's complaint is accompanied by a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The assessment and collection of any filing fee, however, should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
I. DISCUSSION
A civil action filed by an inmate under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "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 (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." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The law further provides 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 . . . where it might have been brought . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The actions about which Plaintiff complains occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. The factual allegations in the complaint reflect that the named defendants are in the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, the majority of material witnesses and evidence associated with those claims relevant to Plaintiff's allegations are in the Southern District of Alabama.
In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama for review and determination.
In so ruling, the court does not preliminarily scrutinize the merits of Plaintiff's complaint against the named parties. --------
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. It is further
ORDERED that on or before December 21, 2015, the parties may file any objections to this Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
Done, this 7th day of December 2015.
/s/ Charles S. Coody
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE