IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KYLE SEIDEL, :

:

Plaintiff :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-16-1807

:

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON, : (Judge Brann)

ET AL., :

:

Defendants :

MEMORANDUM

October 4, 2016

Background

Kyle Seidel, an inmate presently confined at the Lancaster County Prison,

Lancaster, Pennsylvania, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Accompanying the Complaint is an in forma pauperis application.1

Service of the Complaint has not yet been ordered and there has been no ruling on

the in forma pauperis application.

Named as Defendants are the Lancaster County Prison, and two of its

employees Warden Steberger and Deputy Warden Croci. Plaintiff states that

following his entry into the Lancaster County Prison he was strip searched and

1 Seidel completed this Court's form application to proceed in forma pauperis

and authorization to have funds deducted from his prison account. 

1

Case 4:16-cv-01807-MWB-JVW Document 8 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 3
placed in the Restricted Housing Unit on July 8, 2016 without his personal

property being inventoried. Seidel alleges that he subsequently discovered that

170 pages of personal legal documents pertaining to his criminal proceedings are

missing because prison staff failed to follow proper procedure. As relief, Seidel

seeks monetary damages as well as injunctive relief.

Discussion

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides that 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 a defendant is subject to the court’s personal

jurisdiction with respect to such action. brought. 

It is equally well settled that a court may transfer any civil action for the

convenience of the parties or witnesses, or in the interest of justice, to any district

where the action might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The United States

Supreme Court in Hoffman v, Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343 (1960), recognized that

under § 1404(a), a civil action may be transferred by a district court to another

district court where that action may have been brought by the plaintiff. 

2

Case 4:16-cv-01807-MWB-JVW Document 8 Filed 10/04/16 Page 2 of 3
As noted above, Seidel acknowledges that the events giving rise to the filing

of this action all occurred at the Lancaster County Prison. The Plaintiff and

Defendants are also located at the Lancaster County Prison which is located within

both Lancaster County, Pennsylvania and the confines of the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(a). Thus,

the complaint is not properly brought in this district.

Based on the location of the Defendants, the nature of Plaintiff’s

allegations, and the fact that Seidel is still confined within the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania, it is apparent that the convenience of the parties and the interests of

justice would be best served by transferring this matter to the judicial district

wherein the Plaintiff is incarcerated, the Defendants are located, and the underlying

events transpired.

 Since the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a more convenient forum, this

matter will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District

of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). An appropriate Order will enter. 

 

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

3

Case 4:16-cv-01807-MWB-JVW Document 8 Filed 10/04/16 Page 3 of 3