Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00631/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00631-0/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 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ALBERT CURRY, #286436, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-631-TMH

) [WO]

)

ALABAMA DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY )

and STATE TROOPER HANKS, )

1

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Albert Curry [“Curry”], an indigent state inmate,

alleges that Alabama State Trooper Todd Hanks subjected him to an illegal arrest in

September 2012 in Monroeville, Alabama. 

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

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

The court has ascertained that the full name of the individual defendant is Todd Hanks. It

1

likewise appears to this court that Trooper Hanks is the only proper defendant in this cause of action. 

See Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) (Unless a state or the state agency consents to suit, the

plaintiff cannot proceed against such defendant as the action is proscribed by the Eleventh

Amendment and “[t]his bar exists whether the reliefsought is legal or equitable.”); Will v. Michigan

Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2309 (1989) (A state agency is merely an

extension of the State and is therefore “not a ‘person’ [subject to suit] within the meaning of §

1983....”). 

Case 2:13-cv-00631-TMH-SRW Document 3 Filed 09/25/13 Page 1 of 4
District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. 

2

II. DISCUSSION

A 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action “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 actions about which the plaintiff complains occurred in Monroeville, Alabama,

a city located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Alabama. In addition, the factual allegations set forth in the complaint suggest

that Trooper Hanks, the individual properly named as a defendant, resides in the Southern

District of Alabama. Thus, the claims asserted by the plaintiff are beyond the venue of this 3

court. However, it is clear from the face of the complaint that the proper venue for this cause

The plaintiff filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. No. 2. 

2

However, under the circumstances of this case, the court concludes that assessment and collection

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

of Alabama. 

Subsequent information obtained by this court indicates that Trooper Hanks resides in 3

Atmore, Alabama, which is located within the Southern District of Alabama. 

2

Case 2:13-cv-00631-TMH-SRW Document 3 Filed 09/25/13 Page 2 of 4
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 disposition.

III. 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 on or before October 9, 2013 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the 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 advisements in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation 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),

3

Case 2:13-cv-00631-TMH-SRW Document 3 Filed 09/25/13 Page 3 of 4
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 25 day of September, 2013. th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:13-cv-00631-TMH-SRW Document 3 Filed 09/25/13 Page 4 of 4