Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00256/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00256-0/pdf.json

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

---

Attached to the plaintiff’s complaint is an affidavit in support of a request for leave to proceed in forma 1

pauperis. However, in light of the April 1996 revisions to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and under the circumstances of this

case, this court makes no determination with respect to such request as the assessment and collection of any filing

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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM HAGOOD, )

a/k/a, BADGER CLAW, #156026X, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-CV-256-MEF

) [WO]

)

CHRIS SUMMERS, et al., )

)

 Defendants )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, William Hagood [“Hagood”], a state inmate,

challenges actions taken against him at the Holman Correctional Facility. Specifically,

Hagood complains that correctional officials at the aforementioned facility have denied him

the right to practice his religion. 

Upon review of the factual allegations presented in the complaint and in light of

applicable federal law, the court concludes this case should be transferred prior to service

of process to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in

accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. 

1

Case 2:09-cv-00256-MEF-WC Document 4 Filed 03/27/09 Page 1 of 4
2

DISCUSSION

A civil action filed under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “may be brought only 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).

However, 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). 

The only properly named defendants reside in the Southern District of Alabama. It

is likewise clear from the plaintiff’s recitation of facts that only correctional officials

assigned to Holman Correctional Facility are personally involved in the alleged

constitutional violations made the basis of the instant complaint. Moreover, all of the

claims presented in the complaint relate to actions undertaken at this institution which is

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

of Alabama. Thus, it is clear that the witnesses and evidence associated with this case 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

Case 2:09-cv-00256-MEF-WC Document 4 Filed 03/27/09 Page 2 of 4
In transferring the present case, this court makes no determination with respect to the merits of the 2

plaintiff’s claims for relief. The court also defers issuing a ruling on the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunction as such motion is more appropriately addressed by the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Alabama. 

3

Court for the Southern District of Alabama for review and determination. 

2

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 April 9, 2009, the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is objecting. 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 advisements in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982); see Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d th

Case 2:09-cv-00256-MEF-WC Document 4 Filed 03/27/09 Page 3 of 4
4

33 (11 Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en th th

banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down

prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 27th day of March, 2009.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00256-MEF-WC Document 4 Filed 03/27/09 Page 4 of 4