Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00931/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00931-0/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

JOHNNY L. CAMERON, #154328, ) 

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:15-CV-931-WHA 

 ) (WO)

)

KIM THOMAS and CORIZON, INC., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by 

Johnny L. Cameron (“Cameron”), an indigent state inmate. In the instant civil action, 

Cameron challenges the constitutionality of medical treatment he received at the Kilby 

Correctional Facility from his arrival at this facility on October 31, 2013 until his transfer 

to the Fountain Correctional Facility on January 14, 2014. He also challenges the 

constitutionality of medical treatment provided to him at Fountain Correctional Facility

since his transfer there. A thorough review of the pleadings filed in this case demonstrate 

that the vast majority of the claims raised herein address the medical treatment Cameron 

has received and continues to receive at Fountain. 

Upon review of the factual allegations presented in the complaint, the defendants’ 

special report and the plaintiff’s affidavit filed on April 20, 2016, the court concludes that

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

of Alabama in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. 

Case 2:15-cv-00931-WHA-GMB Document 26 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 3
2

II. DISCUSSION

A civil action asserting a violation of a prisoner’s constitutional rights 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). 

Fountain Correctional Facility is located within the jurisdiction of the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. The bulk of the complaint relates to 

medical treatment Cameron received while incarcerated at Fountain Correctional Facility

within the Southern District of Alabama. In addition, medical personnel with personal 

knowledge of the alleged violations that occurred or are occurring at Fountain Correctional 

Facility are located within the Southern District of Alabama. The named defendants 

commonly defend suits in all federal courts of this state. Ultimately, it is clear that the 

majority of witnesses and evidence associated with this case 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 disposition. 

Case 2:15-cv-00931-WHA-GMB Document 26 Filed 04/21/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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 May 5, 2016 the parties may file objections 

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

conclusions in the Recommendation to which the 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 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); 11th Cir. R. 3-

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

DONE this 21st day of April, 2016.

 /s/ Gray M. Borden 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00931-WHA-GMB Document 26 Filed 04/21/16 Page 3 of 3