Ny
- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT || E dD |.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 19
SOUTHERN DIVISION aie act -9 PF
as Pot COUR Mee ;
AARON STINCHCOMBE “ERS Lust, wich pt
and BENJAMIN ZIKE, DETRO!
Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-14271
v. HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
PATRICIA CARUSO, et. al.,

Defendants,
/

OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS
COMPLAINT TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Aaron Stinchcombe and Benjamin Zike, (“plaintiffs”), both presently confined at
the Mound Road Correctional Facility in Detroit, Michigan, have filed a civil rights
complaint in this district pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In their complaint, plaintiffs
claim that on September 15, 2008, defendant Caruso, the director of the Michigan
Department of Corrections (M.D.O.C.) issued a memo indicating that a ten percent
surcharge or tax would now be tevied on all future inmate purchases at the Inmate
Stores at the various M.D.O.C. facilities. Plaintiffs claim that the decision to charge a
surcharge or tax on all inmate purchases arose from the Michigan Executive Policy
Team and the Administrative Management Team in collaboration with defendant
Caruso. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendants. For the
reasons stated below, the Court will transfer this matter to the Western District of

Michigan for further proceedings.



|. DISCUSSION

Venue is in the judicial district where either all defendants reside or where the
claim arose. Al-Muhaymin v. Jones, 895 F. 2d 1147, 1148 (6" Cir. 1990); 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b). 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 the
action might have been brought. See United States v. P.J. Dick, inc., 79 F. Supp. 2d
803, 805-06 (E.D. Mich. 2000)(Gadola, J.); 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Venue of a lawsuit
may be transferred sua sponte for the convenience of parties or witnesses. Sadighi v.
Daghighfekr, 36 F. Supp. 2d 267, 278 (D.S.C. 1999).

The factors that guide a district court’s discretion in deciding whether to transfer
a case include: (1) the convenience of the witnesses; (2) the location of relevant
documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of
the parties; (4) the locus of the operative facts; (5) the availability of process to compel
the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) the
forum’s familiarity with governing law; (8) the weight accorded the plaintiff's choice of
forum; and (9) trial efficiency and interests of justice, based upon the totality of the
circumstances. Overland, Inc. v. Taylor, 79 F. Supp. 2d 809, 811 (E.D. Mich.
2000)(Gadola, J.).

The Court concludes that both for the convenience of the parties and witnesses,
as well as in the interests of justice, the present matter must be transferred to the
Western District of Michigan. In this case, plaintiffs’ complaint challenges an alleged

system-wide policy of the Michigan Department of Corrections, and therefore, the



material events occurred wherever these policies were created. See Boyd v. Snyder,
44 F. Supp. 2d 966, 970-71 (N.D. Ill. 1999). The alleged policy was promulgated in
Lansing, Michigan, which is in the Western District of Michigan. Because this was the
primary situs of the material events in this case, plaintiffs’ choice of forum carries little
weight. /d. Moreover, because the plaintiffs seek to enjoin further implementation of
this policy, “[t]he locus of policy implementation is more relevant than the locus of policy
creation” for purposes of venue. /d. at 971. Accordingly, this matter will be transferred
to the Western District of Michigan for further proceedings.
Il. ORDER
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to transfer this case to

the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan pursuant to 28

HON. R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S.C. § 1404(a).

DATED: to /& /o?