Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00523/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00523-0/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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

LARRY JONES, #165 087, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:15-CV-523-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

RICKEY LYONS, COI, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to excessive 

force while incarcerated at the Fountain Correctional Facility. The Fountain Correctional 

Facility is located in Atmore, Alabama, which is 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

 

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 

                                                            

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

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

Court for the Southern District of Alabama. 

Case 2:15-cv-00523-MHT-WC Document 3 Filed 07/29/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

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 at the Fountain Correctional 

Facility which is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Alabama. The factual allegations set forth in the complaint reflect 

that the named defendants are located in the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, the 

majority of material witnesses and evidence associated with those claims relevant to 

Plaintiff’s allegations are located in 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. 

II. 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 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 August 12, 2015. Any objections filed must 

specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the 

Case 2:15-cv-00523-MHT-WC Document 3 Filed 07/29/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

party is objecting. 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 

(5th Cir. 1982); see Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see 

also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as 

binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to 

the close of business on September 30, 1981). 

Done this 29th day of July, 2015. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00523-MHT-WC Document 3 Filed 07/29/15 Page 3 of 3