Opinion
Civil Action 2:24-cv-0259
03-14-2024
PEARLINA S. STORY, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF STANTON T. STORY, Plaintiff, v. S.C.I. PHOENIC MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
Robert J. Colville 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 Eastern District of Pennsylvania forthwith.
II. REPORT
Pearlina S. Story (“Plaintiff') is the administrator of the Estate of Stanton T. Story. According to the Complaint, Mr. Story unnecessarily suffered and untimely died as a result of allegedly inadequate medical care that he received while in the custody of the State Correctional Institution at Phoenix (“SCI-Phoenix”) in Collegeville, Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff initiated this matter by submitting an Application to Proceed in District Court with Prepaying Fees or Costs, ECF No. 1, and Complaint, ECF No. 1-1, both of which were received by this Court on February 29, 2024. As best as the undersigned can tell from the Complaint, all of the alleged acts and omissions recited therein occurred at SCI-Phoenix, and all of the Defendants are located there as well.
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) it there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provide 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. SCI-Phoenix is located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, which is within the confines of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C § 118(a). Thus, venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In the event that a ease is filed tn 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 Non-precedential opinions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit are somewhat divergent regarding the ability of district courts to transfer venue sua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 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, 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 Eastern 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 Eastern 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. Briahtwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposmg objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.