UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONALD DEHAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT HORTON, et al.,

Defendant.

/

Case No. 2:15-cv-14459

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Before the Court is Plaintiff Donald Dehar’s pro se civil rights complaint brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dehar is an Arizona state prisoner currently confined at the

Arizona State Prison Complex Lewis-Rast in Buckeye, Arizona. In his complaint, Dehar

asserts claims against several prison employees concerning alleged prison assaults, lost

mail, and loss of familial contact. He seeks emergency help and protection.

“The Due Process Clause protects an individual’s liberty interest in not being subject

to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful contacts,

ties, or relations.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471–72 (1985) (internal

quotation marks omitted). A defendant must have minimum contacts within the forum State

before personal jurisdiction will be found to be reasonable and fair. Int’l Shoe Co. v.

Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316–19 (1945); Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454,

1459–60 (6th Cir. 1991). A plaintiff in a federal civil action must demonstrate that the court

in which his or her suit is brought has personal jurisdiction over the defendants. See, e.g.,

CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257, 1261–62 (6th Cir. 1996).

In this case, Dehar fails to plead any facts to show that the defendants have any

minimum contacts with the State of Michigan or otherwise establish the Court’s personal

Case 2:16-cv-00297-DLR--MHB Document 3 Filed 01/28/16 Page 1 of 3
jurisdiction over the named defendants, who appear to reside in Arizona and whose

challenged actions occurred within the State of Arizona. The Court thus concludes that it

lacks personal jurisdiction over the named defendants. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.701

et seq.; § 600.705 (Michigan’s long-arm jurisdiction statute).

Moreover, even if the Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants, the Court

is not the proper venue for this action. Venue for a civil action brought in federal court is

governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Section 1391(b) provides:

Venue in general. 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 any defendant is

subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Public officials “reside” in the county where they perform their official

duties. O'Neill v. Battisti, 472 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1972). When venue is improper, a

court may either dismiss the case or, in the interests of justice, transfer the case to a district

or division where it could have been brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Additionally, even

when venue is proper, a court may transfer the case to any other district where it might

have been brought for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of

justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A court may sua sponte transfer a case for improper

venue. Carver v. Knox County, 887 F.2d 1287, 1291 (6th Cir. 1989). 

Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona is the proper forum for this action. The defendants (and Plaintiff

2

Case 2:16-cv-00297-DLR--MHB Document 3 Filed 01/28/16 Page 2 of 3
Dehar) reside in Buckeye, Arizona, which lies in Maricopa County, for purposes of the

present complaint and the actions giving rise to the complaint occurred there. Maricopa

County, Arizona lies in the Phoenix Division of the District of Arizona. See 28 U.S.C. § 82;

D. Ariz. L.R. Civ. P. 77.1(a). The Court makes no determination as to the merits of the

complaint as such matters are more properly left for consideration by the transferee court.

ORDER

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court transfer this case

to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division. 

SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: January 28, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on January 28, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol Cohron

Case Manager

3

Case 2:16-cv-00297-DLR--MHB Document 3 Filed 01/28/16 Page 3 of 3