Wallace v. Culliver (INMATE 1) - Document No. 3
Wallace v. Culliver (INMATE 1) - Document No. 3
3
Case 2:06-cv-00688-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 4
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Charles Wallace [“Wallace”], a state inmate, asserts
that his constitutional rights were violated during his confinement at the Holman Correctional
Facility [“Holman”]. Specifically, Wallace complains that Grantt Culliver, the warden at
Holman, deprived him of his property without due process of law. Holman Correctional
facility is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama.
Upon review of the factual allegations presented in the complaint, the court concludes
that this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
1
1. Attached to Wallace's complaint is an affidavit in support of a request for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. However, in light of the April 1996 revisions to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and under the circumstances of this
case, this court makes no determination with respect to such request as the assessment and collection of any filing
fee should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00688-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 2 of 4
DISCUSSION
A civil action filed by an inmate under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “may be
brought . . . in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in
the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to the claim occurred . . . or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be
found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b). The law further provides that “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and]
in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district . .
The named defendant resides in the Southern District of Alabama. The action about
which the plaintiff complains occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, the claim asserted by the plaintiff is
beyond the venue of this court. However, it is clear from the face of the complaint that the
proper venue for this cause of action is the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama.
In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that in the interest of justice and for the
convenience of the parties this case should be transferred to the United States District Court
2
Case 2:06-cv-00688-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 3 of 4
CONCLUSION
be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama
ORDERED that on or before August 21, 2006 the parties may file objections to the
Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the
or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised
that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the
Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the
District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from
District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.
Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d
33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en
banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit
3
Case 2:06-cv-00688-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 4 of 4
/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE