EATON v. PLASSE

S.D. Indiana

EATON v. PLASSE

DecidedNovember 21, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-00379

StatusUnknown

This text of EATON v. PLASSE (EATON v. PLASSE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

EATON v. PLASSE, (S.D. Ind. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

ARSENIO EATON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:22-cv-00379-JPH-MG ) JOHN PLASSE, ) MELISSA, ) COX, ) ) Defendants. )

Order Denying Motion to Change Venue

Before the Court is Plaintiff Arsenio Eaton's motion to change venue. Dkt. 5. Mr. Eaton requests that the Court transfer this matter to a different division. Id. A district court may transfer a case to a different division if it is more convenient or if it is in the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The decision to transfer a case is within the Court's discretion. See also Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Intern., Inc., 626 F.3d 973, 978 (7th Cir. 2010). Here, it is neither more convenient nor in the interest of justice to transfer this case. The parties are located in the Terre Haute division, and it is more desirable to have this matter resolved in the Terre Haute division because that is the location of the events in Plaintiff's complaint. Research Automation, 626 F.3d at 978. Mr. Eaton argues that change of venue is necessary here for him to get a fair trial because the defendants are employed in the Terre Haute division. See Dkt. 5. His conclusory argument that the jury pool in this division will be biased does not convince the Court that change of venue would be in the interests of justice. Smith v. ABN AMRO Mort. Group, Inc., 434 F. App'x 454, 465 (6th Cir. 2011) ("[A]n unsubstantiated claim of jury bias, such as the one alleged here, is insufficient to compel a district court to transfer a case."). And his claim that the defendants will "obstruct justice" or somehow interfere with the court's administration of Justice is similarly unfounded. Plaintiff's motion to change venue, dkt. [5], is therefore denied. SO ORDERED. Date: 11/21/2022 Sjamu Patrick banter James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution: ARSENIO EATON 600 West Honey Creek Drive Terre Haute, IN 47802

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

ARSENIO EATON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:22-cv-00379-JPH-MG ) JOHN PLASSE, ) MELISSA, ) COX, ) ) Defendants. )

Order Denying Motion to Change Venue

Before the Court is Plaintiff Arsenio Eaton's motion to change venue. Dkt. 5. Mr. Eaton requests that the Court transfer this matter to a different division. Id. A district court may transfer a case to a different division if it is more convenient or if it is in the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The decision to transfer a case is within the Court's discretion. See also Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Intern., Inc., 626 F.3d 973, 978 (7th Cir. 2010). Here, it is neither more convenient nor in the interest of justice to transfer this case. The parties are located in the Terre Haute division, and it is more desirable to have this matter resolved in the Terre Haute division because that is the location of the events in Plaintiff's complaint. Research Automation, 626 F.3d at 978. Mr. Eaton argues that change of venue is necessary here for him to get a fair trial because the defendants are employed in the Terre Haute division. See Dkt. 5. His conclusory argument that the jury pool in this division will be biased does not convince the Court that change of venue would be in the interests of justice. Smith v. ABN AMRO Mort. Group, Inc., 434 F. App'x 454, 465 (6th Cir. 2011) ("[A]n unsubstantiated claim of jury bias, such as the one alleged here, is insufficient to compel a district court to transfer a case."). And his claim that the defendants will "obstruct justice" or somehow interfere with the court's administration of Justice is similarly unfounded. Plaintiff's motion to change venue, dkt. [5], is therefore denied. SO ORDERED. Date: 11/21/2022 Sjamu Patrick banter James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution: ARSENIO EATON 600 West Honey Creek Drive Terre Haute, IN 47802

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

EATON v. PLASSE, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eaton-v-plasse-insd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack