Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00728/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00728-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

SERON SMITH, #183 558, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-728-WKW

 ) [WO]

WILLIAM BENNETT, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Bibb Correctional 

Facility, complains that on May 30, 2016, Defendants failed to protect him from an inmate assault. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants continue to be deliberately indifferent to his safety by housing 

him with inmates who belong to the same gang as the inmate who assaulted him and who have 

threatened him with harm. Finally, Plaintiff appears to complain that Defendants improperly 

subjected him to disciplinary action as a result of the May 30, 2016 incident. Doc. 1. 

The Bibb Correctional Facility is in Brent, Alabama, which is within the jurisdiction of the 

United States District Court for the Northern 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 Northern District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1404.1 

																																																												 1 Plaintiff's complaint is accompanied by a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. # 2. The 

assessment and collection of any filing fee, however, should be undertaken by the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Alabama. 

Case 2:16-cv-00728-WKW-SRW Document 3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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 Northern District of Alabama. The factual allegations set forth in the 

complaint reflect that a majority of the named defendants are located in the Northern District of 

Alabama. Although Defendants Dunn and Price reside in the Middle District of Alabama, they are

subject to service of process throughout the state and commonly defend suits in all federal courts 

of this state. Thus, the majority of material witnesses and evidence associated with those claims 

relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations are located in the Northern 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 Northern District of Alabama for review and determination.2

II. CONCLUSION

																																																												 2 In so ruling, the court does not address the merits of Plaintiff's complaint against the named parties.

Case 2:16-cv-00728-WKW-SRW Document 3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama pursuant 

to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. It is further 

ORDERED that on or before October 10, 2016, Plaintiff may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, 

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. This 

Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on 

appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon 

grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust 

Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 

790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).

DONE, on this the 26th day of September, 2016.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

Susan Russ Walker

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:16-cv-00728-WKW-SRW Document 3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 3