IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

C H A R L E S S U L T O N , J R . ,

IDOC # A93755,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 12-112-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MURPHY, District Judge:

Plaintiff Charles Sulton, Jr., a prisoner in the custody of the Illinois Department of

Corrections who currently is incarcerated in the Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action

pro se purportedly pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1346, 2671 et seq. In general, 

A civil action may be brought in[:] (1) a judicial district in which any defendant

resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;

(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise

to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action

is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought

as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to

the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In this instance, the only applicable provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) is

subsection (2), providing for venue in the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of

the action is situated. A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Sulton’s claims in

Page 1 of 2
this case occurred in the area of Chicago, Illinois, which is within the jurisdiction of the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. See 28 U.S.C. § 93(a)(1). Also, this

suit concerns real property located in the Northern District of Illinois, and it appears that most of the

Defendants named by Sulton, including various corporations and the Chicago Legal Clinic, can be

found in that district. The court concludes therefore that venue over this proceeding properly lies

in the Northern District of Illinois, and that it is in the interests of justice that this cause be

transferred there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Accordingly, pursuant to Section 1391(b) and

Section 1404(a), this action is TRANSFERRED on the Court’s own motion to the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. All pending motions in this case, including

Sulton’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) and Sulton’s motion for

appointment of counsel (Doc. 3), are carried with the case, and shall be resolved in the transferee

court. No summons shall issue in this action unless so directed by the transferee court. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the electronic record of this case to the Clerk of Court for

the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and to close the case on this

Court’s electronic docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 10, 2012

/s/ G. Patrick Murphy 

G. PATRICK MURPHY

United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2