Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00304/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00304-0/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 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

____________________________

APRIL DUNCAN, #182 712 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:11-CV-304-ID

(WO)

COUNTY CONECUH, et al., *

Defendants. *

____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Julia Tutwiler

Prison for Women in Wetumpka, Alabama, seeks to challenge matters associated with

criminal proceedings held before the Circuit Court for Conecuh County, Alabama. Conecuh

County, Alabama, is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the

Southern 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 Southern District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

1

I. DISCUSSION

 A civil action filed under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “may . . . be brought . . . in

(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,

In light of the 1996 revisions to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and under the circumstances of this case, this

1

court makes no ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as the assessment and

collection of any filing fee should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the Southern District

of Alabama.

Case 2:11-cv-00304-ID-CSC Document 3 Filed 05/25/11 Page 1 of 3
(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).

The defendants named to this cause of action reside in the Southern District of

Alabama. All of the actions about which Plaintiff complains occurred within the jurisdiction

of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, it is clear

2

from the face of the complaint that the proper venue for this cause of action is the United

States District Court for 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.

II. 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.

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

against the named parties.

2

Case 2:11-cv-00304-ID-CSC Document 3 Filed 05/25/11 Page 2 of 3
It is further

ORDERED that on or before June 8, 2011 the parties are DIRECTED to file any

objections to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the

findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous,

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are

advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not

appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein

th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the

th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 25 day of May, 2011.

th

/s/Charles S. Coody

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:11-cv-00304-ID-CSC Document 3 Filed 05/25/11 Page 3 of 3