Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01098/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01098-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

This court makes no ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as the 1

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

Southern District of Alabama.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

ORLANDO DEWAYNE PORCH, #111 575 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-1098-T

(WO)

DONAL CAMPBELL, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

 RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s complaint filed under the provisions of

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently confined at the Holman Correctional Facility and the

incident about which complains 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

Case 2:05-cv-01098-MHT-VPM Document 3 Filed 11/28/05 Page 1 of 4
 In so ruling, this court does not preliminarily scrutinize the merits of Plaintiff's complaint against 2

the named parties.

2

DISCUSSION

 A civil action filed under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “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). 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).

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

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

Southern District of Alabama. Although Defendant Campbell resides in the Middle District

of Alabama, he is subject to service of process throughout the state and commonly defend

s suits in all federal courts of this state. Moreover, it appears from Plaintiff's recitation

of the facts that a majority of witnesses and evidence associated with this case are located

in the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, the court concludes that from the face of the

complaint, the proper venue for this cause of action is the United States District Court for the

Souther District of Alabama. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that in the 2

Case 2:05-cv-01098-MHT-VPM Document 3 Filed 11/28/05 Page 2 of 4
3

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.

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 the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before December 12, 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 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

Case 2:05-cv-01098-MHT-VPM Document 3 Filed 11/28/05 Page 3 of 4
4

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 28 day of November, 2005 th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01098-MHT-VPM Document 3 Filed 11/28/05 Page 4 of 4