Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00072/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00072-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DAVID McDONALD, #252206, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-72-TMH

) [WO]

)

OFFICER NEAL, )

)

Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, David McDonald [“McDonald”], an indigent state

inmate, alleges a correctional officer used excessive force against him at the J. O. Davis

Correctional Facility on August 5, 2012. 

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

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

1

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

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

1

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.

Case 2:13-cv-00072-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 02/13/13 Page 1 of 3
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 individual named as a defendant resides in the Southern District of Alabama. The

actions about which the plaintiff complains occurred at a correctional facility located within

the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, a

facility in which the plaintiff remains incarcerated. Thus, the claims asserted by the plaintiff

are beyond the venue of this court. However, 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.

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 

2

Case 2:13-cv-00072-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 02/13/13 Page 2 of 3
ORDERED that on or before February 27, 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), 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 13 day of February, 2013. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:13-cv-00072-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 02/13/13 Page 3 of 3