Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00247/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00247-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

Due to the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act

of 1996, the Court has not entered an order to collect the filing

fee from Plaintiff so that the receiving court may do so. See

Doc. 6 (granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis). 

2

In his original Complaint filed in this action, Plaintiff

named other persons whom he has also named as Defendants in

another § 1983 action, namely Dixon v, State of Alabama, et al.,

CA 07-717-WS-B, which is pending in this court. Plaintiff’s

original complaint (Doc. 1) contained allegations very similar to

those contained in CA 07-717-WS-B (pending). However, in his

Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has asserted different allegations

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

JESSIE W. DIXON, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 08-0247-CG-B

CHERYL PRICE, :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate who is proceeding pro se,

filed the instant 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). Based upon a

careful review of the record, the undersigned recommends that this

action be transferred to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Alabama.1

In his superseding, Court-ordered Amended Complaint, Plaintiff

has named Cheryl Price as the sole Defendant. (Doc. 4).2

Case 1:08-cv-00247-CG-B Document 8 Filed 10/14/08 Page 1 of 5
against Defendant Price.(Doc. 4).

2

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Price is attempting to charge him

with a Class C felony for failure to register although he has not

yet been released. Plaintiff contends that this is a violation of

his right to be free at the end of his sentence. Plaintiff asserts

that Defendant Price is located in Bibb County, and is the warden

at Bibb Correctional Facility. Indeed, the Alabama Department of

Corrections’ registry of facilities and employees also reflects

that Defendant Price is the warden at Bibb Correctional Facility.

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). When venue is not proper in the

district of filing, a district court may transfer the action to any

other district or division where the action might have been brought

in the interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In the present

action, the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s action are alleged to

have occurred in Bibb County, and Defendant Price is warden in Bibb

County. Bibb County is located in the Northern District of

Case 1:08-cv-00247-CG-B Document 8 Filed 10/14/08 Page 2 of 5
3

Alabama, as opposed to the Southern District; thus, venue is

lacking in the Southern District of Alabama. Accordingly, it is

recommended, in the interest of justice, that action be transferred

to the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this recommendation. 

DONE this 14th day of October, 2008.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00247-CG-B Document 8 Filed 10/14/08 Page 3 of 5
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). 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, in part, 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 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. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10)

days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded).

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

Case 1:08-cv-00247-CG-B Document 8 Filed 10/14/08 Page 4 of 5
5

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 14th day of October, 2008.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00247-CG-B Document 8 Filed 10/14/08 Page 5 of 5