Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00137/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00137-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES EDWARD BAGLEY, #182103, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-137-WHA

) (WO)

)

CALHOUN COUNTY DISTRICT )

ATTORNEY, et al., )

)

Defendants )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by

James Edward Bagley ("Bagley"), an indigent state inmate. In the instant civil action,

Bagleychallengesthe constitutionality a conviction and sentence forsecond degree assault

imposed upon him in 2005 by the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama. Complaint -

Doc. No. 1 at 3. Bagley namesthe Calhoun CountyDistrict Attorney,Judge Samuel Monk,

Randy Moeller, his defense counsel, Calhoun County Circuit Clerk James Henderson, the

Office of the Attorney General and Judge Brian Howell as defendants.

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

Case 2:16-cv-00137-WHA-TFM Document 3 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 4
Northern District of Alabama in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. 

1

II. DISCUSSION

A civil action asserting a violation 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). 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).

Calhoun County islocated within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama. Thus, the actions about which Bagley complains

occurred in the Northern District of Alabama. In addition, with the exception of the

Attorney General, all of the defendants reside in the Northern District of Alabama as do

those individuals with personal knowledge of the alleged violations of Bagley's

constitutional rights. Finally, despite the fact that the Office of the Attorney General is

located in the Middle District of Alabama, the Attorney General is subject to service of

Bagley filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Court Doc. No. 2. However, 1

under the circumstances of this case, the court concludes that assessment and collection of any filing fee

should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. 

2

Case 2:16-cv-00137-WHA-TFM Document 3 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 4
process throughout the state and commonly defends suits in all federal courts of this state.

It is therefore clear that the 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 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.

2

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it isthe 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 March 21, 2016 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal

conclusionsin the Recommendation to which the objection is made; frivolous, conclusive,

or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the

Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of

legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party

Although it appears Bagley’s claims are not cognizable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, see Heck v. 2

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973), this court makes no

determination with respect to the merits of the plaintiff’s claims for relief against any of the named

defendants as any such determination should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Alabama. 

3

Case 2:16-cv-00137-WHA-TFM Document 3 Filed 03/03/16 Page 3 of 4
to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal

conclusions 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); 11TH CIR. R.

3-1. See Stein v. Lanning 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).

Done this 3 day of March, 2016.

rd

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:16-cv-00137-WHA-TFM Document 3 Filed 03/03/16 Page 4 of 4