Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00597/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00597-0/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

BERNARD JEMISON, #179 080, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-597-TMH

) [WO]

COMMISSIONER KIM T. THOMAS, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s complaint filed under the provisions of

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently confined at the Holman Correctional Facility and the

matters about which Plaintiff complains are occurring at this facility. Holman Correctional

Facility is located in Atmore, Alabama, which is 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

This court makes no ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 1

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 2:12-cv-00597-TMH-WC Document 3 Filed 07/12/12 Page 1 of 4
 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, (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).

It is clear from the allegations in the complaint that all the actions about which

Plaintiff complains are occurring or have occurred within the jurisdiction ofthe United States

District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Although Defendant Thomas resides

in the Middle District of Alabama, he is subject to service of process throughout the state and

commonly defends suits in all federal courts of this state. Moreover, it appears from

Plaintiff's recitation of the facts that a majority of witnesses and evidence associated with this

case are located in the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, the court concludes that, from

the face of the complaint, the proper venue for this cause of action is the United States

District Court for the Souther 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.

2

Case 2:12-cv-00597-TMH-WC Document 3 Filed 07/12/12 Page 2 of 4
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.

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before July 26, 2012. 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 (5thCir. 1982). See Stein

v. Reynolds Sec., Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982);see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661

F.2d 1206 (11thCir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of

the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981).

3

Case 2:12-cv-00597-TMH-WC Document 3 Filed 07/12/12 Page 3 of 4
Done this 12th day of July, 2012.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:12-cv-00597-TMH-WC Document 3 Filed 07/12/12 Page 4 of 4