Opinion
Civil Action 21-887
07-16-2021
JUWAN MITCHELL Plaintiff, v. ANDREW LOW; INMATE YOUNG; and CO MILLAE, Defendants.
Marilyn J. Horan, District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania forthwith.
II. REPORT
Juwan Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Smithfield (“SCI-Smithfield”) in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff initiated this matter by submitting a Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 1, and Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights, ECF No. 1-1, both of which were received by this Court on July 12, 2021. All of the alleged acts and omissions recited in the Complaint occurred at SCI-Smithfield. Each Defendant is alleged to be located at SCI-Smithfield. ECF No. 1-1 at 2.
In the section of the Complaint entitled “The Parties to This Complaint, ” Plaintiff states that each party to this matter - including himself - is located at “SCI Smithfield[, ” or “SCI Smithfield[, ] 1120 Pike Street Huntingdon PA[, ] Pittsburgh PA 16652[.]” ECF No. 1-1 at 2. 16652 is a zip code for Huntingdon, PA. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' website, 1120 Pike Street is the address of SCI-Smithfield. See https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Smithfield.aspx (last visited July 15, 2021).
In a civil case where jurisdiction is based not solely on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) establishes that venue is proper in:
(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same 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.
Pennsylvania is divided into three federal judicial districts. 28 U.S.C. § 118. Pursuant to statute, Huntingdon County - the county in which SCI-Smithfield is located - is assigned to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 118(b). Thus, venue is proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
In the event that a case is filed in an incorrect district, the district courts are permitted to transfer it to the district where venue would be proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Non-precedential opinions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit are somewhat divergent regarding the ability of district courts to transfer venue sua sponte. See, e.g., Decker v. Dyson, 165 F. App'x. 951, 954 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a district court, upon a motion or sua sponte, may transfer a case to a court of proper jurisdiction when such a transfer is in the interest of justice”). See also Lafferty v. St. Riel, 495 F.3d 72, 75 and n.3 (3d Cir. 2007), as amended (July 19, 2007), as amended (Nov. 23, 2007) (“The decision to transfer [sua sponte] under § 1406(a) thus turns on a question of fact, subject to the District Court's discretion. We do not disturb it here.”). Cf. Fiorani v. Chrysler Grp., 510 Fed.Appx. 109, 111 (3d Cir. 2013) (holding that a district court's sua sponte dismissal for lack of venue was erroneous because it should have considered transfer under § 1406(a)). But see Henderson v. Keisling, 341 Fed.Appx. 769 (3d Cir. 2009) (vacating district court's sua sponte transfer for improper venue). This Court has raised the issue of venue sua sponte. See, e.g., Nation of Islam v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., No. CIV.A. 12-82, 2012 WL 529546, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. CIV.A. 12-82, 2012 WL 529238 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2012).
Having considered all of the factors governing venue, see, e.g., Calkins v. Dollarland, Inc., 117 F.Supp.2d 421, 428 (D.N.J. 2000) (setting forth the factors to consider for transferring venue in the context of 28 U.S.C. § 1404), and in the interests of justice, it is recommended that the Clerk should be directed to transfer this case forthwith to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, as venue is more proper therein.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, it is respectfully recommended that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania forthwith.
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.
Hon. Marilyn J. Horan, United States District Judge