Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-166-WHA [WO]
10-03-2014
BOBBY BARRETT, #256970, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL WOODS et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is before the court on a complaint filed by Bobby Barrett ["Barrett"], a state inmate, on March 10, 2014. In this complaint, Barrett challenges the constitutionality of actions taken against him during a previous confinement in the Cherokee County Jail. Specifically, Barrett complains that officers at the jail "used excessive force tazing [him] while handcuff multiple times until blisters came on his body." Doc. No. 1 at 3.
Although the Clerk of this court stamped the complaint "received" on March 12, 2014, it is clear that Barrett presented the complaint to prison officials for mailing prior to this date. A review of the pleadings indicates that Barrett executed the complaint on March 10, 2014. Doc. No. 1 at 4. The law is well settled that a pro se inmate's complaint is deemed filed the date it is delivered to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-272 (1988); Adams v. United States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1340-41 (11th Cir. 1999); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 (11th Cir. 1993). "Absent evidence to the contrary in the form of prison logs or other records, [this court] must assume that [the instant complaint] was delivered to prison authorities the day [Barrett] signed it...." Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001). The court therefore considers March 10, 2014 as the date of filing.
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 Northern District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
The plaintiff filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. No. 2. However, under the circumstances of this case, the court concludes that assessment and collection of any filing fee should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
II. DISCUSSION
A 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action "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 ... where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The individuals named as defendants reside in the Northern District of Alabama. The actions about which the plaintiff complains occurred at a facility located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Thus, the claims asserted by the plaintiff are 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 Northern 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 for the Northern District of Alabama for review and determination.
In transferring this case, the court makes no determination with respect to the merits of the plaintiff's claim for relief.
--------
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. It is further
ORDERED that on or before October 17, 2014, the parties may file objections to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive 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 attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the 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 handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
DONE, this 3rd day of October, 2014.
/s/ Susan Russ Walker
SUSAN RUSS WALKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE