Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00278/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00278-0/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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

RE’NAUL M. JOHNSON, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 07-0278-KD-M

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate who is proceeding pro

se, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action has been

referred to the undersigned for appropriate action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4). It is the

undersigned’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s action be

transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Alabama.

Plaintiff named several Defendants who have Montgomery,

Alabama, addresses, namely, Commissioner Richard Allen, Dr. Ron

Cavanaugh, Dr. George Lyrene, Prison Health Services, Dr. Sylvia

McQueen, Dr. Robert Hunter, and Mental Healthcare Management. 

Montgomery is located in Montgomery County in the Middle District

of Alabama. For the other Defendants, Dr. Robert Barnes and

Warden Jerry Ferrell, Plaintiff gave Atmore, Alabama, addresses. 

Atmore is located in Escambia County in the Southern District of

Alabama. 

Case 1:07-cv-00278-KD-M Document 14 Filed 08/03/07 Page 1 of 5
Plaintiff’s action contains claims arising in the Middle and

Southern Districts. Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Fountain

Correctional Center in the Southern District, is alleged to have

been diagnosed as a gender dysphoria-transsexual type. Prior to

his incarceration, he was a pre-operative male-to-female and was

treated for seven years with Premarin, anti-depressants, and

cognitive therapy. When Plaintiff arrived at the Alabama

Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) on October 21, 2004, Defendant

Mental Healthcare Management’s (“MHM”) Dr. Donna Earnshaw

concurred in this diagnosis of Plaintiff and recommended that

Plaintiff’s hormone therapy be reinstated for a prolonged period

for his mental health. Defendant Dr. Barnes supposedly failed to

follow this order, but later, on May 26, 2006, he wrote a

standing order for Plaintiff to receive such treatment. This was

done after MHM’s chief psychiatrist, Defendant Dr. Hunter, had

reviewed Plaintiff’s records and wrote to ADOC’s Medical

Director, Defendant Dr. Cavanaugh, that lack of hormonal

treatment had caused Plaintiff to suffer from anxiety and

depression. Then, on July 26, 2006, Defendant Dr. Lyrene,

Director of Inmate Treatment and Assistant Medical Director for

ADOC, overrode the decision to reinstate Plaintiff’s hormonal

treatment. Plaintiff also maintains that as of that date

Defendants Drs. Barnes, Hunter, and McQueen deprived him from

receiving constitutionally acceptable adequate medical care.

In addition, Defendant Dr. Barnes has written orders for

Case 1:07-cv-00278-KD-M Document 14 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 5
Plaintiff to receive a C-Pap Machine for his sleep apnea. 

Defendant Prison Health Care and ADOC have failed to provide

Plaintiff with this machine for his condition that was diagnosed

prior to his incarceration. Furthermore, Defendant Ferrell, as

Warden, has failed to use his authority to see that the

regulations were obeyed and that Plaintiff received the

prescribed medical treatment. 

A § 1983 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 a

substantial part of property that is the

subject of the action is situated, 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); see New Alliance Party of Ala. v. Hand, 933

F.2d 1568, 1570 (11th Cir. 1991) (applying § 1391(b)’s venue

provisions to a § 1983 action). 

In the present action, the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s

action appear to have occurred in both the Middle and Southern

Districts of Alabama. But the chief decisions to withhold

treatment for both Plaintiff’s conditions, particularly at the

present time, have occurred in the Middle District. And

Defendants who are allegedly responsible for these overriding

decisions are located in the Middle District. Accordingly, it is

recommended, in the interest of justice, and for the convenience

of the parties, in that most of Defendants are located in the

Case 1:07-cv-00278-KD-M Document 14 Filed 08/03/07 Page 3 of 5
Middle District where policy and contractual matters are decided

for ADOC systemwide, that this action be transferred to the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“For the convenience of parties and

witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may

transfer any civil action to any other district or division where

it might have been brought.”); Roofing & Sheet Metal Services v.

LaQuinta Motor Inns, 689 F.2d 982, 985 (11th Cir. 1982) (The

transfer decision is left to “sound discretion of the district

court and [is] reviewable only for an abuse of that

discretion.”).

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of

this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of

court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the

district judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an

attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate

judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d

736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404

(5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging

the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set

out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which

provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time

is established by order. The statement of objection

shall specify those portions of the recommendation to

which objection is made and the basis for the

Case 1:07-cv-00278-KD-M Document 14 Filed 08/03/07 Page 4 of 5
objection. The objecting party shall submit to the

district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a

brief setting forth the party’s arguments that the

magistrate judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de

novo and a different disposition made. It is

insufficient to submit only a copy of the original

brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a

copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred

to and incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the

objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the

fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination

that transcription is necessary is required before the United

States will pay the cost of the transcript.

DONE this 2nd day of August, 2007.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00278-KD-M Document 14 Filed 08/03/07 Page 5 of 5