Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00154/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00154-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WAYNE D. PERRY, #129097, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-154-TMH

) [WO] 

)

GRANTT CULLIVER, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

In this civil action, Wayne D. Perry ["Perry"], a state inmate, challenges the

constitutionality of medical treatment provided to him at the Holman Correctional Facility

["Holman"], the facility at which he is currently incarcerated.1

 Specifically, Perry complains

medical personnel at Holman have refused to treat him for "crabs ... crawling inside his rectum." 

Complaint - Doc. No. 1-3 at 8. Perry names correctional officials Grantt Culliver, the former

warden at Holman, former commissioners of the Alabama Department of Corrections and the

current commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections as defendants. He also names

as defendants Donny Myers, Nicholi Tessema, Delano Benjamin, Robert Barnes and Bridgett

Wilson, all current medical personnel at Holman, and Charlene Gandy, a former nurse at

Holman. In addition, Perry lists Prison Health Services, Correctional Medical Services and

1

The plaintiff filed this complaint on January 17, 2012 in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County,

Alabama. On February 21, 2012, the defendants removed the cause of action to this court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. 

Case 2:12-cv-00154-TMH-TFM Document 9 Filed 02/29/12 Page 1 of 4
Corizen Health Services, the former and current contract medical care providers for the Alabama

prison system, as defendants. 

Upon review of the factual allegations presented in the complaint, the court concludes

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

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

II. DISCUSSION

A civil action asserting 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). However, the law further

provides that "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 Holman Correctional Facility is located within the jurisdiction of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, the actions about which the plaintiff

complains occurred and are continuing to occur at a correctional institution within the

jurisdiction of the Southern District of Alabama. Moreover, the vast majority of individuals

named as defendants reside in the Southern District of Alabama and those persons personally

involved in the medical treatment provided to the plaintiff reside in such district while the

remaining defendants are subject to service of process throughout the state and may be required

to defend this suit by any federal court of this state. It is therefore apparent that the majority of

2

Case 2:12-cv-00154-TMH-TFM Document 9 Filed 02/29/12 Page 2 of 4
witnesses and evidence associated with this case are located in the Southern District of Alabama.

In light of the foregoing, the court concludes 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. 

III. 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 March 14, 2012 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

(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

3

Case 2:12-cv-00154-TMH-TFM Document 9 Filed 02/29/12 Page 3 of 4
business on September 30, 1981.

 Done this 29th day of February, 2012.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:12-cv-00154-TMH-TFM Document 9 Filed 02/29/12 Page 4 of 4