Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00791/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00791-0/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

JOHN FITZGERALD KIEL, #188 238, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-791-WHA

) [WO]

GOVERNOR ROBERT BENTLEY, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

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

Plaintiff, a state inmate. In the instant civil action, Plaintiff challenges the conditions of

confinement to which he is subjected at the Decatur Work Release Facility. Plaintiff also

complains that any funds correctional officials deduct from his work release earnings over

forty percent violates state law, and his federal constitutional right to due process. To

1 2

Ala. Code § 14-8-6 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

1

The employer of an inmate involved in work release shall pay the inmate's wages directly to the

Department of Corrections. The department may adopt regulations concerning the disbursement of

any earnings of the inmates involved in work release. The department is authorized to withhold

from an inmate’s earnings the cost incident to the inmate's confinement as the department shall

deem appropriate and reasonable. In no event shall the withheld earnings exceed 40 per cent of the

earnings of the inmate. After all expenses have been deducted by the department, the remainder of

the inmate’s earnings shall be credited to his or her account with the department....

This court notes that the validity of Defendants’ actions under state law with respect to the withholding of

2

funds in excess of the 40% authorized by Ala. Code § 14-8-6 have been deemed appropriate by the Alabama

Supreme Court in Thomas v. Merritt, et al., ___ So.3d ___, 2013 WL 6360909 (Dec. 6, 2013). The decision in

Merritt may, therefore, impact any potential federal due process claim regarding the improper taking of funds as this

right is generally defined by state law-law decided adversely to the plaintiff in Merritt.

Case 2:14-cv-00791-WHA-TFM Document 14 Filed 11/13/14 Page 1 of 5
support this claim, Plaintiff maintains that besides deducting the forty percent allowed by

Ala. Code § 14-8-6 for the cost of confinement the ADOC charges fees for transportation

provided by correctional personnel to/from an inmate’s place of employment and laundry

service for “free-world” work apparel. Plaintiff names Robert Bentley, Governor of the

3

State of Alabama, Kim Thomas, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections,

and Batina Carter, Warden of the Decatur Work Release Facility, as defendants in this cause

of action.

Upon review of the factual allegations in the complaint and the assertions set forth by

Plaintiff in his motion to change venue, the court concludes this case should be transferred

to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under the directives

of 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

4

II. DISCUSSION

A civil action alleging violations of a prisoner’s constitutional rights 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).

Although Plaintiff also complains that correctional officials deduct fines and child support payments from

3

his earnings, these deductions occur pursuant to orders issued by the state courts, not because of policies

implemented by the Alabama Department of Corrections.

Plaintiff filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. Doc. No. 13. However,

4

under the circumstances of this case, the court concludes that assessment and/or collection of any filing fee should be

undertaken by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

2

Case 2:14-cv-00791-WHA-TFM Document 14 Filed 11/13/14 Page 2 of 5
The law, however, 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 Decatur Work Release Facility is within the jurisdiction of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The conditions and actions about which

Plaintiff complains are occurring in the Northern District of Alabama. In addition,

Defendant Carter resides in the Northern District of Alabama, as do all individuals with

personal knowledge of the alleged violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Although

by virtue of their positions as Governor and Commissioner Defendants Bentley and Thomas

reside in the Middle District of Alabama, they are subject to service of process throughout

the state and commonly defend suits in all federal courts of this state. Consequently, the

majority of witnesses and evidence associated with this case are in the Northern District of

Alabama. Moreover, Plaintiff argues that because “the incidents [made the basis of this

complaint] are [occurring] at Decatur Alabama Work Center in Morgan County Alabama ...

in the Northern District [of Alabama] ... [this case] should be transferred” to the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Motion to Change Venue - Doc.

No. 10 at 1.

In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that in the interest of justice and for the

convenience of the parties this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Alabama for review and determination.

3

Case 2:14-cv-00791-WHA-TFM Document 14 Filed 11/13/14 Page 3 of 5
III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to change venue (Doc. No. 10) be GRANTED.

2. This case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

5

It is further

ORDERED that on or before November 28, 2014, Plaintiff may file an objection to

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

Magistrate Judge's 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 and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and advisements in the

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

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar a 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 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See

also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as

binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the

In transferring this case, this court makes no determination with respect to the merits of Plaintiff's claims

5

for relief.

4

Case 2:14-cv-00791-WHA-TFM Document 14 Filed 11/13/14 Page 4 of 5
close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done, this 13 day of November 2014.

th

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 2:14-cv-00791-WHA-TFM Document 14 Filed 11/13/14 Page 5 of 5