Hawkins-Bivins 941156 v. 68th District Court
This text of Hawkins-Bivins 941156 v. 68th District Court (Hawkins-Bivins 941156 v. 68th District Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______
JACOB HAWKINS-BIVINS,
Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-872
v. Honorable Paul L. Maloney
68TH DISTRICT COURT, 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 Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility (IBC) in Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan, though the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred at the 68th District Court in Flint, Genesee County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues the 68th District Court and County of Genesee. In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the 68th District Court allowed state witnesses to commit perjury during his criminal proceedings. 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 Genesee County. Defendants are public officials serving in Genesee 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). Genesse 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: August 5, 2025 /s/ Ray Kent Ray Kent United States Magistrate Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hawkins-Bivins 941156 v. 68th District Court, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-bivins-941156-v-68th-district-court-miwd-2025.