Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_09-cv-00697/USCOURTS-alsd-1_09-cv-00697-2/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 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DARRELL WILLIAMS, #179642, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0697-KD-N 

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., : 

Defendants. : 

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate who is proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis,

1

 filed an 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). After careful review, it is the undersigned=s recommendation that plaintiff=s 

action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of 

Alabama. 

In this action plaintiff seeks class certification and complains about the policy, 

practice, and actions that have resulted in more than forty-percent of his wages being 

taken by the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) while he was working on 

 1

 The Clerk is DIRECTED to notify the finance section to transfer the case information 

upon the transfer of this action. 

Case 1:09-cv-00697-KD-N Document 15 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 5
2 

work release, which allegedly is in violation of Alabama Code § 14-8-6 (1975). Plaintiff 

states that this taking of his wages is being done pursuant to Administrative Regulation 

410, thereby placing this regulation in conflict with the statute. 

 The numerous defendants are either administrative officials with ADOC or 

wardens at the institutions where plaintiff has been incarcerated. These institutions are 

situated in all three federal districts. Whereas, a Montgomery, Alabama, address was 

provided for the administrative officials, namely, Commissioner Richard Allen, Chief 

Deputy Commissioner Vernon Barnett, Deputy Commissioners James Deloach and Greg 

Lovelace, and Institutional Coordinators Roy Hightower and Gwen Mosley. 

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.

 In the present action, the events giving rise to plaintiff=s action 

appear to have occurred in every district in Alabama. But the chief complaint is 

that a policy or practice is causing an unconstitutional deprivation of plaintiff’s 

property, and plaintiff seeks, among other forms of relief, a permanent injunction 

to change the policy and practice system-wide. Because the administrative 

Case 1:09-cv-00697-KD-N Document 15 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 5
3 

officials who make policy reside in Montgomery in the Middle District, it is 

recommended that, in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties, 

this action be transferred to the United States District Court for Middle District 

where the majority of defendants are located. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1404(a) (AFor the 

convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may 

transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been 

brought.@); Roofing & Sheet Metal Services v. LaQuinta Motor Inns, 689 F.2d 

982, 985 (11th Cir. 1982) (The transfer decision is left to Asound discretion of the 

district court and [is] reviewable only for an abuse of that discretion.@); Holton v. 

Florida, 2008 WL 1885128, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 6, 2008) (“Such transfers may 

be made sua sponte by the district court.”) (unpublished). 

 The instructions that follow the undersigned=s signature contain important 

information regarding objections to the report and recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge. 

DONE this 17th day of June, 2010. 

 /s/ Katherine P. Nelson 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

 

Case 1:09-cv-00697-KD-N Document 15 Filed 06/17/10 Page 3 of 5
4 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND 

RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS 

CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in 

it must, within fourteen 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); 

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). 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 

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 AStatement of Objection to 

Magistrate Judge=s Recommendation@ within ten [now fourteen] 

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. 

Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). Pursuant to 

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

 /s/ Katherine P. Nelson 

Case 1:09-cv-00697-KD-N Document 15 Filed 06/17/10 Page 4 of 5
5 

Case 1:09-cv-00697-KD-N Document 15 Filed 06/17/10 Page 5 of 5