Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00484/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00484-0/pdf.json

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

---

1. Attached to the plaintiff's complaint is an affidavit in support of a request for leave to proceed

1

in forma pauperis. However, in light of the April 1996 revisions to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and under the

circumstances of this case, this court makes no determination with respect to such request as the assessment

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

District of Alabama. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

HUGH W. TEAT, #107484, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-484-WHA

) [WO] 

)

BOB RILEY, et al., )

)

 Defendants )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Hugh W. Teat [“Teat”], a state inmate, challenges the

constitutionality of the conditions of confinement to which he is subjected at the William E.

Donaldson Correctional Facility. The aforementioned correctional facility is located within

the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern 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 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 only in (1)

Case 2:06-cv-00484-WHA-CSC Document 3 Filed 06/05/06 Page 1 of 4
2

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 “[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 majority of defendants reside in the Northern District of Alabama. Although by

virtue of their positions as governor of the State of Alabama and commissioner of the

Alabama Department of Corrections two of the named defendants reside in the Middle

District of Alabama, these individuals are subject to service of process throughout the state

and commonly defends suits in all federal courts of this state. Moreover, it appears from the

plaintiff’s recitation of facts that only correctional officials assigned to the William E.

Donaldson Correctional Facility are personally involved in the alleged constitutional

violations made the basis for the instant complaint and the actions about which he complains

are occurring at this institution which is located in the Northern District of Alabama. Thus,

it is clear that the majority of witnesses and evidence associated with this case are located in

the Northern District of Alabama.

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

Case 2:06-cv-00484-WHA-CSC Document 3 Filed 06/05/06 Page 2 of 4
3

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 RECOMMENDATION 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 on or before June 18, 2006 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

Case 2:06-cv-00484-WHA-CSC Document 3 Filed 06/05/06 Page 3 of 4
4

down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 5 day of June, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00484-WHA-CSC Document 3 Filed 06/05/06 Page 4 of 4