Hart 826834 v. Brewer ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______ RONALD HART, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-1186 v. Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou SHAWN BREWER et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ ORDER OF TRANSFER This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff presently is incarcerated at the Central Michigan Correctional Facility (STF) in St. Louis, Gratiot County, Michigan. However, this lawsuit concerns events which occurred at the Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility (WHV) in Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County, Michigan. Plaintiff is suing Defendants Warden Shawn Brewer, Unknown Corrections Officers (Unknown Parties #1 and #2), an Unknown Psychologist (Unknown Party #3), and an Unknown Supervisor (Unknown Party #4), because he believes them to be responsible for the death of his daughter, who was confined at WHV. In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his daughter was assaulted and became extremely stressed. While confined in segregation, Defendants failed to properly monitor his daughter, and she was found hanging in her cell. Under the revised venue statute, venue in federal-question cases lies in the district in which any defendant resides or in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The events underlying the complaint occurred in Washtenaw County. Defendants are public officials serving in Washtenaw County, and they “reside” in that county for purposes of venue over a suit challenging official acts. See Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U.S. 128, 132 (1885); O’Neill v. Battisti, 472 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1972). Washtenaw County is within the geographical boundaries of the Eastern District of Michigan. 28 U.S.C. § 102(a). In these circumstances, venue is proper only in the Eastern District. Therefore: IT IS ORDERED that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). It is noted that this Court has not decided Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, nor has the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A, or under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). Dated: November 22, 2024 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou HALA Y. JARBOU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2