Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_24-cv-00706/USCOURTS-alnd-5_24-cv-00706-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DONDERRIOUS WILLIAMS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) Case No. 2:23-cv-406-RAH-SMD

 ) [WO] 

JEREMY PELZER, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION 

Previously, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why the case should 

not be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Alabama, Northern Division. (Doc. 84.) In response, Defendants request the 

transfer while Plaintiff voices tepid opposition. (Docs. 86 & 87.) The case will be 

transferred to the Northern District of Alabama, Northern Division. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Personal jurisdiction is uncontested, and venue is appropriate in the Middle District 

of Alabama. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

III. BACKGROUND 

Donderrious Williams is an inmate in the custody of the Alabama Department 

of Corrections (ADOC) since 2007. Although he is now incarcerated at the William 

E. Donaldson Correctional Facility in Bessemer, Alabama, the events giving rise to 

this lawsuit occurred between December 2018 and early 2022, when Williams was 

incarcerated at the Limestone Correctional Facility in Harvest, Alabama 

(Limestone). (Doc. 66 at 2.) 

Case 5:24-cv-00706-HNJ Document 88 Filed 05/22/24 Page 1 of 5
2

In a torrent of allegations about his treatment at Limestone, including two 

disciplinary segregations, alleged interference with his channels of communication 

to his attorney, and an assault correctional officers purportedly committed against 

him because he refused to cut his lengthy hair and beard for religious reasons, 

Williams brings eleven claims for relief against fourteen defendants, ranging in rank 

from correctional officer to the ADOC commissioner. (See generally doc. 66.) All 

Defendants are residents of Alabama and all of them, except ADOC Commissioner 

John Q. Hamm, worked at Limestone during the relevant period. (Id.) 

IV. DISCUSSION

As relevant here, venue is proper in a judicial district (1) “in which any 

defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is 

located” or (2) “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[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) & (2). All here agree that the Middle District 

of Alabama is a proper venue for the case because at least one defendant resides 

within it and all defendants are residents of Alabama. All here also agree that the 

Northern District of Alabama is a proper venue because several of the named 

Defendants reside there and all events giving rise to Williams’s claims occurred 

there. 

“For the convenience of the 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[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The decision to transfer a case is 

“left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Brown v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins.

Co., 934 F.2d 1193, 1196 (11th Cir. 1991). When the parties are given an 

opportunity to present their views, the district court may sua sponte transfer a case 

under § 1404(a). Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321, 1336 (11th Cir. 2011).

Several case-specific factors determine whether another venue is more 

convenient and serves the interest of justice:

Case 5:24-cv-00706-HNJ Document 88 Filed 05/22/24 Page 2 of 5
3

(1) the convenience of the witnesses; (2) the location of relevant 

documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the 

convenience of the parties; (4) the locus of operative facts; (5) the 

availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; 

(6) the relative means of the parties; (7) [the suggested] forum's 

familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded a plaintiff's 

choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, 

based on the totality of the circumstances.

Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135 n.1 (11th Cir. 2005); see

also Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (holding that the 

transfer analysis requires the Court to “balance a number of case-specific factors” in 

an “individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness”).

Williams chose the Middle District of Alabama, and he is correct that the 

Court generally accords “considerable deference” to his choice of forum. In re Ricoh 

Corp., 870 F.2d 570, 573 (11th Cir. 1989). Though where, as here, “the operative 

facts underlying the cause of action did not occur within the forum chosen by the 

Plaintiff, the choice of forum is entitled to less consideration.” Gould v. Nat’l Life 

Ins. Co., 990 F. Supp. 1354, 1358 (M.D. Ala. 1998). Even so, the other factors must 

“clearly outweigh” Williams’s chosen forum. Id. at 1359. Together with that 

deference, Williams hangs his hat on his assertion that “[s]everal central documents 

in this case are held” at the ADOC headquarters in Montgomery, Alabama, within 

the Middle District of Alabama. (Doc. 87 at 3.) Maybe so, but all other factors

strongly favor transfer to the Northern District of Alabama, particularly the interests 

of justice and the convenience of the witnesses, the “most important factor” in the 

analysis. Gould, 990 F. Supp. at 1359. 

All events giving rise to this action occurred at the Limestone Correctional 

Facility in Harvest, Alabama, within the Northern Division of the Northern District 

of Alabama, including Williams’s two disciplinary segregations, alleged 

interference with his channels of communication to his attorney, and an assault 

Case 5:24-cv-00706-HNJ Document 88 Filed 05/22/24 Page 3 of 5
4

correctional officers purportedly committed against him because he refused to cut 

his lengthy hair and beard for religious reasons. (See generally doc. 66.) And, 

except for Hamm, most or all other named defendants reside near Limestone, within 

the Northern District of Alabama. Williams himself is now housed at the William 

E. Donaldson Correctional Facility in Bessemer, Alabama, within the Northern 

District of Alabama. (Id.) Most or all non-party witnesses reside at or near 

Limestone too. They include any correctional-officer-witnesses who played a role 

in or witnessed the events of which Williams complains, and any inmates at 

Limestone who witnessed the events made the basis of the Complaint. Given the 

custodial status of those inmate-witnesses, there can be little doubt that Huntsville, 

Alabama is a much more convenient and appropriate location for purposes of 

transporting them to participate in discovery or trial than Montgomery, Alabama.

Even a brief glance at the map shows Limestone is much closer to Huntsville than it 

is to Montgomery. And given the well-publicized staffing issues at the ADOC, it is 

much more convenient and appropriate for any correctional-officer-witnesses to 

participate only a short drive away from Limestone to the Huntsville courthouse 

instead of a several-hour drive to the Montgomery courthouse. Limestone’s 

placement in the Northern District of Alabama also puts that court in a better position 

than this one to compel process and secure attendance of all who may need to 

participate in the litigation. 

As the district where the events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred and which 

houses most of the parties and witnesses, trial efficiency and the interests of justice, 

based on the totality of the circumstances, weigh heavily for transfer to the Northern 

District of Alabama, Northern Division. 

V. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case, and all pending motions, shall 

be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Case 5:24-cv-00706-HNJ Document 88 Filed 05/22/24 Page 4 of 5
5

Alabama, Northern Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Clerk of Court 

is DIRECTED to take the necessary steps to effectuate the transfer. 

DONE on this the 22nd day of May 2024. 

 

R. AUSTIN HUFFAKER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:24-cv-00706-HNJ Document 88 Filed 05/22/24 Page 5 of 5