Opinion
CIVIL 1:20-CV-01931
05-16-2023
SCHWAB, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRANN, JUDGE
The petitioner, Abraham Cruz, Jr. (“Cruz”), proceeding pro se, brings the instant complaint against Federal Butner Mental Health Hospital and some of its as yet unidentified employees. Doc. 1. Though this case was originally closed for failure to pay the filing fee or submit a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis, Cruz recently filed a motion to reopen the case (doc. 21) and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 22) along with a certified prisoner trust fund account statement (doc. 23). We granted the motion to reopen the case.
Upon consideration of the complaint, however, we conclude that the Middle District of Pennsylvania is not a proper venue for this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). According to the complaint, all defendants are located in Butner, North Carolina. Doc. 1 at 2-3. And the events that are alleged in the complaint appear to have occurred at Butner Mental Health Hospital, in Butner, North Carolina. See doc. 1 at 4. It is unclear from the complaint what, if any, connection this case has to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Further, it is doubtful that we in the Middle District of Pennsylvania have jurisdiction over the parties in this case.
“When it appears that a case is being pursued in the wrong venue, there are two potential remedies available to the court.” Brizuela v. Johnson, Civil Action No. 1:22-CV-1304, 2022 WL 6250584, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 7, 2022). Applying 28 U.S.C. § 1406, the district court “shall dismiss” a case brought in the wrong venue. Alternatively, “if it be in the interest of justice,” the district court may transfer a case brought in the wrong venue to any venue “in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406. We find it in the interest of justice to transfer the case, rather than dismiss it, “in order to protect the plaintiff's rights as a pro se litigant” and to “avoid[ ] any prejudice to the plaintiff which might flow from a dismissal of this action on venue grounds.” Jeri v. Finley, Civ No. 1:19-CV-1805, 2019 WL 5721885, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2019) (citing Burnett v. New York Cent. R. Co., 380 U.S. 424, 430 (1965)).
Because the events alleged seem to have occurred in Butner, North Carolina, in Granville County, this case may have been brought in the Eastern District of North Carolina. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 113, 1391. Accordingly, we recommend that the court transfer this case to the Eastern District of North Carolina for all further proceedings, including a decision on Cruz's application to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.