Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00064/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00064-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

In light of the 1996 revisions to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and under the circumstances of this case, this court 1

makes no ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as the assessment and collection

of any filing fee should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

ROBERT L. JOHNSON *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:06-CV-64-ID

 WO

LEVAN THOMAS, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

 RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on January 23, 2006. He files the

complaint against “Levon Thomas, etc.,” and indicates that the incident about which he

complains occurred at the Holman Correctional Facility on February 4, 2005. While the

complaint is devoid of much factual support, it does, as noted, indicate that the actions which

form the basis of the instant complaint occurred at the Holman Correctional Facility which

is located in Atmore, Alabama. Atmore, Alabama, is located within the jurisdiction of the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

Upon review of the factual allegations presented in the complaint, the court concludes

that this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. 

1

Case 2:06-cv-00064-ID-CSC Document 3 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 3
2

DISCUSSION

 A civil action filed under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "may be brought . . . 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 (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is

no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The law

further provides that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] 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 complaint in this matter reflects that the conduct and/or action giving rise to the

filing of this matter occurred at a facility located within the jurisdiction of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. It appears from the complaint that the

named defendant resides in the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, it is clear from the face

of the complaint that the proper venue for this cause of action is the United States District

Court for 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.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama

Case 2:06-cv-00064-ID-CSC Document 3 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 3
3

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. 

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before February 13, 2006. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous,

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are

advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not

appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 30 day of January, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00064-ID-CSC Document 3 Filed 01/30/06 Page 3 of 3