Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00904/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00904-0/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

 _______________________________

JAMES CLAYTON NELSON, #148 536 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-904-T

(WO)

ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS AND *

PAROLES, et al.,

*

Defendants.

 _______________________________

 RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, James Nelson, files this action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Named as

defendants are t he Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles and Parole and Probation

Officer Ernest Gonzales. Plaintiff complains that Defendant Gonzales, a probation and

parole officer in Fayette Count y , Alabama, placed false and erroneous information in his

prison file about sexual crimes he never committed. Plaintiff request s t hat this false,

erroneous, and/or misleading information be expunged from both his pre-sent ence

investigation report and his institutional file. 

T he actions which form the basis of the instant complaint occurred in Fay et t e

County , Alabama. Fayette County, Alabama is located within the jurisdiction of the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Upon review of the fact ual allegations presented in the complaint, the court

Case 2:05-cv-00904-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 10/05/05 Page 1 of 4
1

In light of the 1996 revisions to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and under the circumstances of this case, this

court makes no ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as the assessment

and collection of any filing fee should be undertaken by the United States District C ourt for the Northern

District of Alabama.

2

See Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (the Eleventh

Amendment bars suit directly against a state or its agencies, regardless of the nature of relief sought).

2

concludes that this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.1

 

DISCUSSION

 A civil action filed under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “may be brought . . . in (1)

a judicial dist rict where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,

(2) a judicial district in which a subst antial 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 act ion may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 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 ot her dist rict . . . where it

might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

It is clear from the allegations in the complaint that the actions about which Plaintiff

complains occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Alabama and that the only defendant against whom this action may

proceed properly resides within the jurisdiction of the Unit ed States District Court for the

Northern District of Alabama.2

 Moreover, it appears from Plaintiff's recitation of the facts

Case 2:05-cv-00904-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 4
 3

In so ruling, this court does not preliminarily scrutinize the merits of Plaintiff's complaint

against the named parties.

3

that a majority of witnesses and evidence associated with this case are locat ed in the

Northern District of Alabama. Thus, it appears from the face of the complaint that the

proper venue for this cause of action is t he Unit ed States District Court for the Northern

District of Alabama.3

 

In light of the foregoing, t he 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 Northern District of Alabama for review and determination.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDAT ION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. 

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED t o file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before October 18, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous,

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties

are advised that this Recommendat ion is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is

Case 2:05-cv-00904-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 10/05/05 Page 3 of 4
4

not appealable.

Failure to file written object ions to the proposed findings and recommendations in

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

District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from at t acking on

appeal factual findings in the report 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 close of business

on September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 5th day of October, 2005.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00904-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 10/05/05 Page 4 of 4