UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______ MARC DAVID WORDEN, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-335 v. Honorable Ray Kent GLENN GEARLAND 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, where the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred. Plaintiff sues the following STF staff: Prison Counselor Glenn Gearland, Acting Inspector T. Blain, Acting Resident Unit Manager Gary Keyes, Assistant Deputy Warden Jim King, and Warden Gary Minard. In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants deprived Plaintiff of toilet tissue, retaliated against Plaintiff, confiscated and destroyed items of Plaintiff’s personal property, and denied Plaintiff a hearing related to the removal of his personal property. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id., PageID.5.) 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 Gratiot County. Defendants are public officials serving in Gratiot 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). Gratiot 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: May 2, 2024 /s/ Ray Kent Ray Kent United States Magistrate Judge 2