Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00986/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00986-0/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 

ELVIN VERDELL JOHNSON, #151 292, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-986-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

ALDOC EMPLOYEES (FCF), et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Plaintiff challenges matters associated with disciplinary 

proceedings initiated against him on November 30, 2016, after contraband was located in his 

locker box at the Fountain Correctional Facility. Doc. 1. The Fountain Correctional Facility is in 

Atmore, Alabama. Atmore, 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 by an inmate under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “may be brought . . . 

in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State 

in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or 

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . or (3) if there is no district in which an action may 

                                                            

1

 Upon filing the complaint, Plaintiff did not submit the filing and administrative fees nor did he file a motion in 

support of a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The assessment and collection of any filing fees, however, 

should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. 

Case 2:16-cv-00986-MHT-WC Document 2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 1 of 3
2

otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is 

subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The 

law further provides that “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, 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 actions about which Plaintiff complains occurred at the Fountain Correctional Facility. 

Fountain is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Alabama. Thus, the majority of material witnesses and evidence associated with those 

claims relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations are located in 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. 

It is further 

 ORDERED that on or before February 6, 2017, Plaintiff may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Any objection 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. Plaintiff is advised this Recommendation is not a 

final order and, therefore, it is not appealable. 

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate 

Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of factual findings and 

Case 2:16-cv-00986-MHT-WC Document 2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 2 of 3
3

legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order 

based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in 

the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 

1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989). 

 Done, this 23rd day of January 2017. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:16-cv-00986-MHT-WC Document 2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 3 of 3