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

ANDREW X. MATTHEWS, #164899, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-621-MHT

) [WO] 

)

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

 Defendants )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Andrew X. Matthews [“Matthews”], a state inmate,

alleges that he has been denied his First Amendment right to practice his religion during his

incarceration at the Limestone 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

Case 2:06-cv-00621-MHT-CSC Document 4 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 1 of 4
2

DISCUSSION

A civil action filed under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “may be brought only 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). 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 his position as commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections defendant

Allen resides in the Middle District of Alabama, he is subject to service of process

throughout the state and commonly defends suits in all federal courts of this state. It is

likewise clear from the plaintiff’s recitation of facts that only correctional officials assigned

to the Limestone Correctional Facility are personally involved in the alleged constitutional

violations made the basis for the instant complaint. Moreover, the actions about which

Matthews complains are occurring at this institution which is within the jurisdiction of 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.

Case 2:06-cv-00621-MHT-CSC Document 4 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 2 of 4
3

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. 

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 July 31, 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

Case 2:06-cv-00621-MHT-CSC Document 4 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 3 of 4
4

banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed

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

Done this 18 day of July, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00621-MHT-CSC Document 4 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 4 of 4