UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

JOSHUA P LINDSEY,

 Plaintiff,

 vs. 

WILLIAM WILSON,

JAMES BASINGER,

 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 No. 1:16-cv-02008-TWP-MPB

Entry Transferring Case to the Northern District of Indiana

Plaintiff Joshua Lindsey brought this action in state court against two employees of the 

Indiana Department of Correction, asserting constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

regarding his placement in solitary confinement at Westville Correctional Facility (“Westville”) 

where he is currently incarcerated. Westville is located in LaPorte County, Indiana, which lies in 

the South Bend Division of the Northern District of Indiana. 28 U.S.C. § 94(a)(2). 

The defendants removed this action from state court to this Court. On August 1, 2016, the 

Court ordered the parties to show cause why this case should not be transferred to the Northern 

District of Indiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Court noted that the Northern District of 

Indiana appears to be the most convenient forum and that the interests of justice appear to support 

transferring this case to that District because the result of the alleged misconduct, the plaintiff, and 

the evidence all appear to be located in the Northern District of Indiana where the plaintiff was 

and remains incarcerated. Moreover, the Court noted that there are no allegations connecting the 

alleged conduct to the Southern District of Indiana other than the happenstance that certain IDOC 

officials work from the IDOC central office located in the Southern District of Indiana. 
Both parties responded to the Court’s show cause order. The defendants agree that the 

interests of justice support transferring this action to the Northern District of Indiana. The plaintiff 

objects to the transfer of this action, arguing primarily that venue is proper in this District pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The Court agrees that venue is proper under § 1391; but the show cause 

order focused on whether the action should be transferred pursuant to § 1404(a), not whether venue 

is proper here.

Section 1404(a) provides: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of 

justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might 

have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” This 

“statutory language guides the court’s evaluation of the particular circumstances of each case and 

is broad enough to allow the court to take into account all factors relevant to convenience and/or 

the interests of justice.” Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Intern., Inc., 626 F.3d 

973, 978 (7th Cir. 2010). As to convenience, “courts generally consider the availability of and 

access to witnesses, and each party’s access to and distance from resources in each forum,” as well 

as the “location of material events and the relative ease of access to sources of proof.” Id. 

Regarding the second consideration—the interests of justice—“courts look to factors including 

docket congestion and likely speed to trial in the transferor and potential transferee forums; each 

court’s relative familiarity with the relevant law; the respective desirability of resolving 

controversies in each locale; and the relationship of each community to the controversy.” Id.

The convenience considerations weigh heavily in favor of the Northern District of Indiana, 

as the plaintiff, the evidence, and the material events are all located or occurred at Westville, where 

the plaintiff remains incarcerated. His claims revolve around his placement in solitary 

confinement at Westville. Moreover, he admitted in his complaint that he did not exhaust his 
administrative remedies by filing grievances at Westville before filing this action, making it a near 

certainty that this issue will have to be litigated before the merits of his suit. See Pavey v. Conley, 

544 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 2008). The evidence and witnesses as to this issue are also almost 

certainly located at Westville. The plaintiff notably does not argue that the Northern District of 

Indiana is an inconvenient district to litigate, nor could he, as he and all the evidence in his 

possession are located there. Therefore, the convenience considerations strongly weigh in favor 

of transfer.

The interests of justice also weigh in favor of transferring this action to the Northern 

District of Indiana. There is no reason to think that either District is more familiar with the relevant 

law or that one district will provide a meaningfully speedier resolution of the plaintiff’s case. 

Furthermore, it is in the community’s interests and thus the interests of justice that prisoners 

located in correctional institutions in the Northern District complaining about the conditions of 

their confinement in the Northern District have their claims adjudicated in that District. 

Accordingly, the interests of justice factor also favors transfer.

The plaintiff’s arguments as to why this case should not be transferred are unpersuasive; 

he notably does not provide any basis to view the convenience and interests of justice factors any 

differently than that set forth above. The only arguably relevant fact to which he points is that the 

defendants reside in this District; but the defendants believe convenience and the interests of 

justice favor transfer to the Northern District. 

The plaintiff also contends that multiple Judges of the Northern District are not impartial. 

The Court does not accept that representation, nor does it accept this as a basis not to transfer this 

action when the relevant factors favor transfer.

Finally, the plaintiff suggests that this case also challenges his placement in solitary 
confinement while he was incarcerated at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility and Pendleton 

Correctional Facility—both of which are located in this District—over the course of the past eight 

years. But there are several difficulties with this argument, all of which reveal this argument as a 

misplaced effort to avoid transfer. 

For example, the plaintiff’s own documentary evidence reveals that it was not either of two 

defendants sued in this action that were involved in his earlier placements into solitary 

confinement, so this case could not involve his placement in solitary confinement at those 

facilities. In fact, the plaintiff has previously sued those individuals, Tom Hanlon and James Winn, 

in this District regarding his placement in solitary confinement during his time at Pendleton 

Correctional Facility. The plaintiff filed that action in the Northern District of Indiana, but that 

Court transferred the action to this District since Pendleton Correctional Facility is located here. 

See No. 1:15-cv-158-SEB-MJD, Dkt. 6 (S.D. Ind.). The action was ultimately dismissed as 

malicious because the judge found that plaintiff continued to file fraudulent documents despite the 

Court’s warnings not to do so in that case and in others. See id.; No. 2:13-cv-390-JMS-WGH 

(S.D. Ind.). For this additional reason, plaintiff cannot re-litigate those claims in this action. 

Moreover, the documents submitted by the plaintiff reveal that claims regarding those facilities 

would, in any event, be barred by the statute of limitations. See Serino v. Hensley, 735 F.3d 588, 

590 (7th Cir. 2013). Thus the plaintiff’s attempt to tie this case to this District by arguing that it 

will involve claims regarding his previous placement in solitary confinement at other facilities is 

unavailing.

In sum, the relevant factors both weigh in favor of transferring this case to the Northern 

District of Indiana. The plaintiff’s objection [dkt. 9] is therefore denied and the above action is 

now TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana at 
South Bend, Indiana. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 8/18/2016

Distribution:

JOSHUA P LINDSEY

112177

WESTVILLE - CF

WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Inmate Mail/Parcels

5501 South 1100 West

WESTVILLE, IN 46391

Electronically Registered Counsel