Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_16-cv-00003/USCOURTS-ared-2_16-cv-00003-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

GAIL HOWZE, individually, as ) 

representative and independent ) 

administrator of the ESTATE OF JAMES ) 

T. HOWZE, JR., deceased, ) 

Limited Liability Company ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Case No. 14-cv-10275 

 v. ) 

 ) Judge Joan B. Gottschall 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

 Plaintiff Gail Howze (“Howze”) filed a complaint alleging survival, negligence, and 

deliberate indifference against Defendant United States of America (“United States”), after her 

son died from complications associated with ulcerative colitis while incarcerated at the Federal 

Correction Institute in Forrest City, Arkansas. On April 30, 2015, the United States filed a 

motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). For the reasons discussed below, we grant the United States’ 

motion to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Arkansas. 

I. BACKGOUND 

 “When deciding a motion to transfer venue, the court must accept as true all of plaintiff’s 

well-pleaded facts in the complaint, unless contradicted by affidavits or other appropriate 

evidence from the defendant.” Rendon v. Wexford Health Services, Inc., No. 10 C 8229, 2010 

WL 5129818, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2010), quoting Andrade v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. 04 

Case 2:16-cv-00003-BRW Document 24 Filed 12/23/15 Page 1 of 9
2 

C 8229, 2005 WL 3436400, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2005). The following facts are taken from 

the complaint filed by Howze. 

 In April 2008, James T. Howze, Jr. (“decedent”) was transferred to and incarcerated at 

the Federal Correctional Institution in Forrest City, Arkansas.1

 In March 2009, decedent began 

complaining of stomach pains. He was transported to the prison hospital in or about May 2009 

due to chronic stomach pains and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. Decedent was then 

prescribed medication to treat his condition. Howze alleges that starting in our about June 2009, 

the prison guards would refuse to provide her son with his medication or delay delivery of the 

medication. 

 In July 2009, decedent’s symptoms became worse, requiring multiple hospitalizations. 

His mobility became restricted and in 2010 he was limited to the lower bunk of his cell and was 

confined to a wheelchair. Decedent’s pain continued throughout 2010, and Howze alleges that 

her son requested access to outside medical treatment to address his medical issues that were not 

being handled in the jail. 

 On May 9, 2010, decedent was admitted to a hospital outside the prison because of severe 

exacerbation of his ulcerative colitis and anemia. Unfortunately, decedent was not responding to 

medical treatments and required blood transfusions and a total colectomy on May 18, 2010. He 

died four days later, on May 22, 2010, with the official cause of death being ulcerative colitis 

with complications. Howze then brought the instant two-count action sounding in 

Negligence/Wrongful Death and Deliberate Indifference under the Federal Tort Claims Act, § 

2671 et seq. (“FTCA”) after exhausting all administrative remedies pursuant to § 2675(a) of the 

FTCA. 

 

1

 It is unclear where decedent was transferred from, but the parties do not dispute that the events giving rise to the 

allegations in the complaint occurred in Forrest City, Arkansas. 

Case 2:16-cv-00003-BRW Document 24 Filed 12/23/15 Page 2 of 9
3 

II. DISCUSSION 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in 

the interest of justice, a court may transfer any civil matter to another district where venue is 

proper. The moving party must show the following: (1) venue is proper in the district where the 

action was originally filed; (2) venue would be proper in the transferee court; (3) the transfer will 

serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses as well as the interests of justice. See Morton 

Grove Pharm., Inc. v. Nat’l Pediculosis Ass’n, 525 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1044 (N.D. Ill. 2007). The 

parties do not dispute that venue is proper in the Norther District of Illinois, as this is where 

Plaintiff Howze resides. 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b) (“Any civil action on a tort claim against the 

United States...may be prosecuted only in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or 

wherein the act or omission complained of occurred.”). The parties also do not dispute that 

venue would be proper in the purported transferee district, the Eastern District of Arkansas, as 

the events giving rise to the allegations in the complaint occurred in Forrest City, Arkansas. Id. 

The only question, then, is whether the third prong in § 1404(a) is satisfied. 

 In determining whether a forum is more convenient and whether a transfer would be in 

the interest of justice, the court must consider the private interests of the parties as well as the 

public interest of the court. Morton Grove Pharm., Inc., 525 F.Supp.2d at 1044, citing N. Shore 

Gas Co. v. Salomon, Inc., 896 F.Supp. 786, 791 (N.D. Ill. 1995). The factors relevant to the 

parties’ private interest including the following: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the situs 

of material events; (3) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (4) the convenience of the 

parties; and (5) the convenience of the witnesses. Schwarz v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., 317 

F.Supp.2d 829, 835 (N.D. Ill. 2004). The factors relevant to the public interest of the court 

include the court’s familiarity with the applicable law and concerns relating to the efficient 

Case 2:16-cv-00003-BRW Document 24 Filed 12/23/15 Page 3 of 9
4 

administration of justice. Coll. Craft Cos., Ltd. v. Perry, 889 F.Supp. 1052, 1056 (N.D. Ill. 

1995). As the party seeking to transfer the present case, the United States has the burden to show 

that the Eastern District of Arkansas is “clearly more convenient” than the Northern District of 

Illinois. Heller Fin. Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286, 1293 (7th Cir. 1989); 

Lewis v. Grote Indus., Inc., 841 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1053 (N.D. Ill. 2012). 

A. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum

 The plaintiff’s choice of forum is normally given substantial weight when the court 

considers a motion to transfer. Amorose v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 521 F.Supp.2d 731, 

736 (N.D. Ill. 2007). Here, Howze chose to file suit in the Northern District of Illinois. Standing 

alone, this fact weighs against transfer. 

 However, “where plaintiff’s choice of forum has a relatively weak connection with the 

operative facts giving rise to the claim...the deference traditionally given to selection is 

lessened.” Rendon v. Wexford Health Services, Inc., No. 10 C 1590, 2010 WL 5129818, *4 

(N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2010), quoting Brady v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., No. 05 C 0492, 2006 

WL 2560953, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 30, 2006). In a situation where there is a weak relationship 

between the operative facts and the plaintiff’s chosen forum, the plaintiff’s choice becomes “only 

one of the many factors the court considers.” D’Ancona & Pflaum LLC v. M2 Software, Inc., 

No. 00 C 7150, 2001 WL 873021, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2001). 

 In this case, as in the case in Rendon, the connection between the Northern District of 

Illinois and the operative facts is tenuous at best. Plaintiff Howze, the independent administrator 

of James T. Howze, Jr.’s estate, resides in the Northern District of Illinois, as do decedent’s two 

children, sister, and fiancée. However, as discussed below, the operative facts occurred entirely 

outside this district as the federal correctional facility that housed decedent is located in Forrest 

Case 2:16-cv-00003-BRW Document 24 Filed 12/23/15 Page 4 of 9
5 

City, Arkansas, which is located in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Accordingly, Howze’s 

choice of forum is entitled to minimal weight. 

B. Situs of Material Events 

The plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less deference if another forum has a stronger 

relationship to the dispute. See Powell v. Sparrow Hosp., No. 09 C 3239, 2010 WL 582667, at 

*3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 12, 2010). In her complaint, Howze alleges the following: during the relevant 

time period, decedent (a) was housed in a correctional facility in Arkansas; (b) was diagnosed 

with his medical ailment in Arkansas; (c) was treated for his medical ailment in Arkansas both at 

the prison and a local hospital; and (d) passed away in Arkansas due to the alleged negligence of 

the employees of the federal correctional center. Despite these allegations, Howze argues that 

not all of the “material events” occurred within the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

To support her argument, Howze alleges that “there was substantial communication with 

telephone calls and emails between the decedent, James Howze, and Plaintiff Gail Howze 

regarding his situation, medical condition and lack of treatment.” Howze also alleges that she 

sought the assistance of Senators Richard (“Dick”) Durbin and Roland Burris about the treatment 

that her son was receiving at the federal prison in Arkansas.2

 Finally, Howze alleges that she 

received correspondence from other inmates at the prison in Arkansas regarding her son and his 

medical condition. 

The court is unconvinced of Howze’s position. The communications that Howze 

allegedly sent and received are tangential to the actual issue in this case—the treatment, or lack 

thereof, received by decedent for his medical condition. The case cited by Howze in support of 

her position that these communications support venue, Master Tech Products, Inc. v. Smith, 181 

 

2

 Defendant correctly points out that the complaint and accompanying attachments are devoid of any reference to 

letters being sent to Senators Durbin and Roland. 

Case 2:16-cv-00003-BRW Document 24 Filed 12/23/15 Page 5 of 9
6 

F.Supp. 2d 910 (N.D. Ill. 2002), is inapposite. The issue in Master Tech was whether 

communications sent and received by a party, coupled with other acts, were enough to establish 

personal jurisdiction and proper venue. There is no question that personal jurisdiction and venue 

in the Northern District of Illinois are proper in this case. In fact, venue in this district is a 

prerequisite in order for this court to consider whether or not it can transfer this case pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

Taking the allegations of the complaint as true, the court finds that the majority, if not the 

entirety, of the events giving rise to the allegations in the complaint took place in Forrest City, 

Arkansas. Accordingly, this factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer. 

C. Availability of Evidence 

The next factor the court considers—the location of the documents—generally has little 

impact on the § 1404(a) analysis because technology has made the transfer of documents across 

even great distances relatively easy. See Rabbit Tanaka Corp. USA v. Paradise Shops, Inc., 598 

F.Supp.2d 836, 840 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (“In this day and age, transferring documents from one 

district to another is commonplace and, given the widespread use of digital imaging in big-case 

litigation, no more costly than transferring them across town.”). To the extent that it is a factor, 

the location of documents favors transfer as all of the documents in this case, save for the 

correspondence received and sent by Howze, are located in Arkansas. However, given the 

advanced digital age in which we live, the element is in equipoise. 

D. Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses

 The party seeking transfer, the United States in this case, bears the burden of specifying 

the key witnesses to be called and summarizing their expected testimony. Vandeveld v. 

Christoph, 877 F. Supp. 1160, 1167-68 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Moreover, when considering the 

Case 2:16-cv-00003-BRW Document 24 Filed 12/23/15 Page 6 of 9
7 

convenience of witnesses, the court must evaluate the nature and relevance of the expected 

testimony instead of merely comparing the length of each party’s witness list. Id. at 1168. This 

analysis favors transfer. While Howze claims that five potential witnesses3

 are located in the 

Northern District of Illinois, none of them were direct witnesses to the treatment, or lack thereof, 

received by the decedent and therefore have limited personal knowledge. Luera v. Godinez, No. 

13 C 2041, 2015 WL 1538613, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2015). Although the witnesses listed by 

Howze could potentially offer testimony regarding the decedent’s health prior to his 

imprisonment in Arkansas, that is not an argument offered by Howze to rebut the United States’ 

position that many, if not all, of the prison guards and medical providers who have first-hand 

knowledge of Howze’s condition are located in Arkansas. 

 However, the convenience of party witnesses is less relevant than the convenience of 

non-party witnesses since party witnesses normally must appear voluntarily. See, e.g., First 

Nat’l Bank v. El Camino Res. Ltd., 447 F.Supp.2d 902, 913 (N.D. Ill. 2006). “The convenience 

of the witnesses is often the most important factor in determining whether to grant a motion to 

transfer.” Id. Among the key non-party witnesses that the United States will likely call as 

witnesses are the numerous hospital personnel who cared for or treated the decedent prior to and 

at the time of his death. There also may be independent contractors or former employees of the 

prison over whom the prison no longer retains control. Howze fails to identify any other witness 

it seeks to call from within this district. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. 

E. Interest of Justice

 In addition to considering the parties’ private interests, the public interests of the court 

must also be considered. Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, 525 F.Supp.2d at 1046. The public 

factors relevant to this inquiry include the “court’s familiarity with the applicable law, the speed 

 

3

 Howze, decedents’ two children (ages unknown), decedent’s sister, and decedent’s fiancée. 

Case 2:16-cv-00003-BRW Document 24 Filed 12/23/15 Page 7 of 9
8 

at which the case will proceed to trial, and the desirability of resolving controversies in their 

locale.” First Nat’l Bank, 447 F.Supp2d at 912. 

 It is undisputed that, under the FTCA, liability is determined in accordance with the law 

of the state in which the act or omission occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Because the incident 

in question took place in Arkansas, the Eastern District of Arkansas is more likely to be familiar 

with the governing law in this case. However, because the “interest of justice” inquiry mainly 

focuses on administrative concerns rather than the merits of the underlying dispute, the Eastern 

District of Arkansas’ familiarity with the applicable law only slightly favors transfer. See Coffey 

v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 221 (7th Cir. 1986). 

 Although one of the public factors considered is the “speed at which the case will 

proceed to trial,” courts have looked at the time from filing to disposition as a valid 

consideration. Tuholski v. Delavan Rescue Squad, Inc., No. 13 C 1093, 2013 WL 6038428 (N.D. 

Ill. Nov. 13, 2013). The median number of months from filing to trial favors the Eastern District 

of Arkansas, by approximately a full year (22.2 months versus 34.2 months).4

 However, the 

median number of months from filing to disposition of a civil case favors the Northern District of 

Illinois over the Eastern District of Arkansas. (7 months versus 13.1 months). As a result, this 

factor does not necessarily favor transfer. 

 Finally, while Illinois surely has an interest in litigating disputes that involve a resident’s 

death,5 the central events alleged to have taken place in this matter all happened in Forrest City, 

Arkansas. The decedent was incarcerated in Arkansas, diagnosed in Arkansas, received 

 

4

 Federal Court Management Statistics, available at: http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/na/federal-courtmanagement-statistics/2014/12/31-2 (last visited December 23, 2015) 5

 Although Howze implies in her Response to the Motion to Transfer that her son was a resident of Illinois, there is 

nothing in the complaint concerning decedent’s residency. 

Case 2:16-cv-00003-BRW Document 24 Filed 12/23/15 Page 8 of 9
9 

treatment in Arkansas, and passed away in Arkansas. Therefore, Arkansas has significant 

interest in resolving the claim. 

F. Summary of Factors

 After analyzing the factors for transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the court finds that 

these factors warrant transfer of this action to the Eastern District of Arkansas. In particular, the 

situs of material events, the convenience of the non-party witnesses, and the interests of justice 

weigh significantly in favor of transfer. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, this case is hereby transferred to the Eastern District of 

Arkansas. It is so ordered. 

 

Date: November 23, 2015 /s/ 

 Joan B. Gottschall 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-00003-BRW Document 24 Filed 12/23/15 Page 9 of 9