Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00200/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00200-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corizon, Inc.
Defendant
Correctional Medical Services, Inc.
Defendant
Garon L. McGlathery
Plaintiff
Gregory Nayden
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

GARON L. McGLATHERY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:12cv200-MHT

) (WO) 

CORIZON, INC., et al, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Garon L. McGlathery brought state-law claims

of medical liability and negligence and an Eighth

Amendment deliberate-indifference claim, as enforced by 42

U.S.C. § 1983, against the following defendants: Corizon,

Inc., Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Doctor Gregory

Nayden, and Warden Freddie Butler. McGlathery initially

filed suit in Montgomery County Circuit Court, but Corizon

removed the case to this federal court in the Middle

District of Alabama. The case is now before this court on

Corizon’s motion to transfer to the United States District

Case 2:12-cv-00200-MHT-WC Document 31 Filed 03/30/12 Page 1 of 6
* While McGlathery alleged that he and one of the

defendants are Alabama residents” and thus while there is

some question whether this court had diversity

jurisdiction at the time of removal, McGlathery has filed

an amended complaint that added an Eight Amendment claim.

Thus, this court now has federal-question jurisdiction

over this case. See Grubbs v. General Electric Credit

Corp., 405 U.S. 699 (1972) (holding that if jurisdiction

existed at the time of judgment, improper removal count

not be raised for the first time on appeal); Cotton v.

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insur. Co., 402 F.3d 1267, 1280

(11th Cir. 2005) (explaining how an amended complaint can

create jurisdiction even if it did not exist at the time

of removal); Barbara v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 99

F.3d 49, 55-56 (2d Cir. 1996) (“A federal appellate court

will not remand a case to state court ... if the federal

district court would have had subject matter jurisdiction

if the suit had been filed in federal court in the

posture it had at the time of the entry of final

judgment.”).

2

Court for the Northern District of Alabama. For the

reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.*

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, a district court may

transfer a civil action to any other district in which it

might have been brought for “the convenience of parties

and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” Because

federal courts normally accord deference to a plaintiff’s

choice of forum in ruling on motions to transfer, the

burden is on the movant to show that the suggested forum

Case 2:12-cv-00200-MHT-WC Document 31 Filed 03/30/12 Page 2 of 6
3

is more convenient or that litigation there would be in

the interest of justice. In re Ricoh Corp., 870 F.2d 570,

573 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). However, a district

court has “broad discretion in weighing the conflicting

arguments as to venue.” England v. ITT Thompson

Industries, Inc., 856 F.2d 1518, 1520 (11th Cir. 1988).

A court faced with a motion to transfer must engage in an

“individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience

and fairness.” Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,

487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988).

Resolution of a transfer motion requires a two-step

process. First, the court must determine whether the

action could “originally have been brought in the proposed

transferee district court.” Folkes v. Haley, 64 F. Supp.

2d 1152, 1155 (M.D. Ala. 1999) (DeMent, J.). Then, the

court “must decide whether the balance of convenience

favors transfer.” Id. Factors to consider when making

this second determination include:

“(1) the convenience of the witnesses;

(2) the location of relevant documents

Case 2:12-cv-00200-MHT-WC Document 31 Filed 03/30/12 Page 3 of 6
4

and the relative ease of access to

sources of proof; (3) the convenience of

the parties; (4) the locus of operative

facts; (5) the availability of process

to compel the attendance of unwilling

witnesses; (6) the relative means of the

parties; (7) a forum's familiarity with

the governing law; (8) the weight

accorded a plaintiff's choice of forum;

and (9) trial efficiency and the

interests of justice, based on the

totality of the circumstances.”

Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135 n.1 (11th

Cir. 2005). As McGlathery concedes this case could have

been brought in the Northern District of Alabama, the sole

question is whether the balance of these factors militates

in favor of a transfer.

This case arises from alleged misconduct at the

Hamilton Correctional Facility in Marion County, which is

located in the Northern District of Alabama. The “locus

of operative facts,” therefore, is in the proposed

transferee district. The witnesses and documents are also

in the Northern District. Moreover, the Northern District

is more convenient for the parties, given that all the

attorneys in this case work out of Birmingham or

Case 2:12-cv-00200-MHT-WC Document 31 Filed 03/30/12 Page 4 of 6
5

Huntsville. While McGlathery presumably has less financial

means than the defendants do, this factor cannot logically

support keeping the case in this court, since McGlathery

himself resides in the Northern District. The court

concludes that the Northern District of Alabama is the

forum that most advances trial efficiency and the interests

of justice.

The sole reason to hear this case in the Middle

District is that it is the federal forum to which this case

was removed by Corizon. The normal heft of the plaintiff’s

choice is lessened in this case; because the Middle

District is not McGlathery’s “home forum,” the “presumption

in the plaintiff’s favor applies with less force, for the

assumption that the chosen forum is appropriate is then

less reasonable.” Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l

Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430 (2007) (internal

quotation marks omitted). Indeed, McGlathery admits that

he filed this case in the Montgomery County Circuit Court

rather than in Marion County because he interpreted an

Case 2:12-cv-00200-MHT-WC Document 31 Filed 03/30/12 Page 5 of 6
Alabama venue statute to require that suits involving state

prisons be filed in Montgomery County. Regardless of

whether McGlathery correctly interpreted Alabama’s venue

statute, a defendant may move to transfer after removal.

Hollis v. Florida State University, 259 F.3d 1295, 1296

(11th Cir. 2001) (holding that “[u]pon removal the question

of venue is governed by federal law, not state law”).

* * *

Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of

the court that the motion to transfer (Doc. No. 8) filed

by defendant Corizon, Inc., is granted and this lawsuit is

transferred in its entirety to the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take appropriate

steps to effect the transfer.

This case is closed.

DONE, this the 30th day of March, 2012.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:12-cv-00200-MHT-WC Document 31 Filed 03/30/12 Page 6 of 6