Curtis 594126 v. Nagy

• Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
• Decided: November 21, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01204
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______

READY C. CURTIS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-1204

v. Honorable Ray Kent

NOAH NAGY et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________/ ORDER OF TRANSFER This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT) in Jackson, Jackson County, Michigan, and the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues the following SMT staff: Warden Noah Nagy; Healthcare Unit Manager Unknown King; Registered Nurses Jasmine Crowell and Rebecca Wyse; and Lieutenant Unknown Crites. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges that “medical protocol” was not followed for his “scabies quarantine” and that the responses to his grievances about the issue were inadequate. (See id., PageID.3–5.) 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 Jackson County. Defendants are public officials serving in Jackson 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). Jackson 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 21, 2024 /s/ Ray Kent Ray Kent United States Magistrate Judge