Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00601/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00601-0/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

_______________________________

MR. MICHAEL DARNELL OLIVER, *

#207 467,

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:11-CV-601-TMH

(WO)

JOHNNY L. JOHNSON, et al., *

Defendants. *

_______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The complaint in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action concerns a dispute over an alleged use

of excessive force. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Holman Correctional Facility and

the actions which form the basis of the instant complaint occurred at this facility. Holman

Correctional Facility is located in Atmore, Alabama, which is 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 under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "may be brought . . . in (1)

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

1

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 Court for the Southern District

of Alabama.

Case 2:11-cv-00601-TMH-SRW Document 3 Filed 08/09/11 Page 1 of 3
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). 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 named defendants reside in the Southern District of Alabama. All of the actions

about which Plaintiff complains occurred at a facility located within the jurisdiction of the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, it is clear 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

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

It is further

2

Case 2:11-cv-00601-TMH-SRW Document 3 Filed 08/09/11 Page 2 of 3
ORDERED that on or before August 23, 2011, the parties may file any objections to

the said Recommendation. Any objections 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. 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 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 attacking 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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein

th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the

th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 9 day of August, 2011.

th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:11-cv-00601-TMH-SRW Document 3 Filed 08/09/11 Page 3 of 3