Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00623/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00623-0/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

JOSEPH HACHEY, #222 872, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-623-WKW

) [WO] 

DEPUTY THOMAS POWELL, )

)

Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is before the court on a complaint filed by Plaintiff, a state 

inmate, in which he challenges the constitutionality of actions taken against him during his arrest 

on April 14, 2016, in Mobile County, Alabama. Doc. 1 at 3–4. Upon review, the court finds this 

case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.1

I. DISCUSSION

A 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district where 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 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 

 

1 Plaintiff did not submit the requisite fees required to file this civil action nor did he file an application for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, under the circumstances of this case, the court concludes 

that collection and/or assessment of any filing fee should be undertaken by the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Alabama. 

Case 2:16-cv-00623-WKW-GMB Document 4 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 3
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).

Mobile County, Alabama, is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Consequently, the actions about which Plaintiff

complains occurred in the jurisdiction of that court. Additionally, it also appears that the 

individual(s) involved in the alleged constitutional violations reside in the Southern District of 

Alabama. Under these circumstances, the claims asserted by Plaintiff are beyond the venue of this 

court. It is clear, however, from the face of the complaint that the proper venue for this cause of 

action is the United States District Court for 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 under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404. 

It is further ORDERED that on or before August 24, 2016, Plaintiff may file an objection

to the Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the 

Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not 

be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised 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 a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

Case 2:16-cv-00623-WKW-GMB Document 4 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 3
factual findings and 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 on this 3rd day of August, 2016.

/s/ Gray M. Borden 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00623-WKW-GMB Document 4 Filed 08/03/16 Page 3 of 3