Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00963/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00963-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

DANIEL B. CLARK, #194 417, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:16-CV-963-WHA 

 ) [WO] 

ANGGIE BAGGOT, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Plaintiff complains he was subjected to cruel and unusual 

punishment by a prison official who sexually assaulted him for five months during his 

incarceration at the Alabama Therapeutic Education Facility (“ATEF”). Plaintiff also complains 

that prison personnel at the Bibb Correctional Facility retaliated against him after he reported the 

assault by subjecting him to a higher security classification level. The ATEF is in Columbiana, 

Alabama, and the Bibb Correctional Facility is in Brent, Alabama. Columbiana, Alabama, and 

Brent, Alabama, are both within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Alabama. 

 Upon review of the factual allegations presented in the complaint, the court concludes that 

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

Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.1 

 

                                                            

1

 Plaintiff's complaint is accompanied by a motion in support of 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 

Northern District of Alabama. 

Case 2:16-cv-00963-WHA-WC Document 3 Filed 01/23/17 Page 1 of 3
2

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. § 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). 

 Plaintiff complains about actions that occurred in Columbiana, Alabama, and Brent, 

Alabama, cities within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District 

of Alabama. See Doc. 1 at 2 § II and Clark Affidavit. Thus, the majority of material witnesses and 

evidence associated with those claims relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations are located in the Northern 

District of Alabama. Although Plaintiff provides an address in the Middle District of Alabama 

for two of the named defendants (PREA2

 Agents Futral and Sheperd), it appears his interaction 

with these defendants occurred at the Bibb Correctional Facility. Doc. 1, Clark Affidavit at 2. 

While Defendant Christy Vincent resides in the Middle District of Alabama, as the PREA Director 

for the ADOC, she is subject to service of process throughout the state. In light of the foregoing, 

the court concludes that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties this case 

                                                            

2

 The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) was enacted by Congress to address the problem of sexual abuse 

and sexual harassment within confinement settings. 

Case 2:16-cv-00963-WHA-WC Document 3 Filed 01/23/17 Page 2 of 3
3

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

review and determination. 

II. CONCLUSION 

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

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

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

It is further 

 ORDERED that on or before February 6, 2017, Plaintiff may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate 

Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections 

will not be considered by the District Court. 

Failure to file a written objection to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and 

factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of a 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. 11th Cir. 

R. 3-1; Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); 

Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989). 

 Done this 23rd day of January 2017. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:16-cv-00963-WHA-WC Document 3 Filed 01/23/17 Page 3 of 3