Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00896/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00896-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

COURTNEY BOYD, #208 921, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:15-CV-896-MHT

 ) [WO]

WAL-MART, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Plaintiff challenges matters regarding his arrest on theft 

charges at a Wal-Mart store in Mobile, Alabama, and his subsequent detention in the Mobile 

County Jail because of those charges. Mobile, Alabama, is within the jurisdiction of the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. 

Upon review of the factual allegations in the complaint, the court concludes this case 

should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama 

under 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 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. § 

 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-00896-MHT-CSC Document 3 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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 Southern District of Alabama. The factual allegations in the 

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

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

allegations are 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.2

II. CONCLUSION

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

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama under 

28 U.S.C. § 1404. It is further 

ORDERED that on or before December 21, 2015, the parties may file any objections to 

this Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general 

objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's 

findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall 

bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered 

in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party to challenge on appeal the district 

 2 In so ruling, the court does not preliminarily scrutinize the merits of Plaintiff's complaint against the 

named parties.

Case 2:15-cv-00896-MHT-CSC Document 3 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 3
3

court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions 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 decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of 

business on September 30, 1981.

Done, this 7th day of December 2015.

/s/ Charles S. Coody 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00896-MHT-CSC Document 3 Filed 12/07/15 Page 3 of 3