UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

TERRANCE S. McKINNEY )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CIVIL NO. 1:15cv79

)

THE OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF OF )

WHITLEY COUNTY, ET AL., )

)

 Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on a motion to change venue, filed by the plaintiff,

Terrance S. McKinney (“McKinney”), on August 29, 2018. The defendants, the Office of the

Sheriff of Whitley County, and Sheriff Mark Hodges (“Hodges”), in his individual capacity,

responded to the motion on October 3, 2018, to which McKinney replied on October 10, 2018.

For the following reasons, the motion will be granted.

Discussion

McKinney presents the motion in simple terms. Defendant Mark Hodges, former Sheriff

of Whitley County, is currently employed as a security guard in the courthouse of the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. McKinney

desires to avoid any potential negative effect on his rights that might result from the fact that

Hodges works as a security guard in the building in which McKinney’s case will be tried. 

28 U.S.C. § 1404 (b) provides in pertinent part as follows:

Upon motion, consent or stipulation of all parties, any action, suit or proceeding

of a civil nature or any motion or hearing thereof, may be transferred, in the

discretion of the court, from the division in which pending to any other division in

the same district.
The defendants, in response, claim that McKinney has failed to meet his burden of showing that

transfer is proper. However, as transfer of venue is discretionarywith the district court,

McKinney’s burden is very minimal. McKinney has stated a valid reason for transferring the

case, and that is all that is required. Inexplicably, defendants spend four pages of their brief

discussing the requirements of §1404(a), when that section is not even invoked by McKinney. 

Defendants then spend one short paragraph purportedly discussing §1404(b). However, the case

they cite, Kingsley v. Dixon Old People’s Home Fund, Inc., 1996 WL 417548 (N.D. Ill. 1996),

concerns § 1404(a) and does not even discuss §1404(b).

Defendants appear to make the argument that venue is not proper in any other division of

this district “under the Northern District’s venue designations.” However, although the court

has general orders regarding the assignment of cases within the district (N.D. Ind. L.R. 40-1),

venue is proper in a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents

of the State in which the district is located. 28 U.S.C. § 1391. There has been no allegation that

the Northern District is not the proper judicial district for this case. As a case may be brought in

any division of a proper judicial district, it follows that any division of this court may receive

transfer of this case pursuant to § 1404(b).

It is readily apparent that this case should be transferred. Defendant Hodges is employed

in a very sensitive position in this court, as he is a security guard charged with the task of

guarding the life of the undersigned judicial officer. Clearly, at least the appearance of

impropriety arises if the case remains in this division. Further, as McKinney points out, Hodges

and his fellow security guards have the very first contact with potential jurors and have contact

with the jurors throughout the proceedings. This close contact raises the concern that an

2
inadvertent statement, or even a facial expression, could influence the jury. Therefore, out of an

abundance of caution, the motion to transfer will be granted. The court notes that McKinney is

only requesting that the trial of this case be transferred. However, the concerns raised by

McKinney regarding the trial are equally applicable to other areas of the case. Due to the

relationship of judicial officers and their security guards, the appearance of impropriety clouds

the entire case. Accordingly, the entire case will be transferred. 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, McKinney’s motion to transfer venue [DE 87] is hereby

GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly reassign this case to another Judge

within the Northern District of Indiana. 

 Entered: November 9, 2018.

s/ William C. Lee 

William C. Lee, Judge

United States District Court

3