Holbrook v. State of Michigan

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

CHARLES HOLBROOK, Case No. 1:20-cv-687 Plaintiff, Barrett, J. vs. Bowman, M.J.

STATE OF MICHIGAN, REPORT AND Defendant. RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an inmate at the St. Louis Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan, has filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Michigan. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will not issue a Deficiency Order in this action, however, because this action is not properly filed in the Southern District of Ohio.1 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides that civil suits may be brought only in the judicial district where (1) any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the claim may otherwise be brought. In this case, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against the State of Michigan. It also appears that the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred Michigan and not in any county located in the Southern District of Ohio. The Southern District of Ohio is not the proper venue under section 1391(b).

1 Plaintiff has filed multiple actions in this Court which have been transferred to Michigan district courts. See, Holbrook v. Warden, Case No. 1:16-cv-592 (SJD; KLL) (S.D. Ohio May 31, 2016); Holbrook v. Warden, Case No. 1:16-cv-660 (MRB; KLL) (S.D. Ohio June 20, 2016); Holbrook v. Pols, Case No. 1:16-cv-1013 (TSB; SKB) (S.D. Ohio Oct. 20, 2016); Holbrook v. Pols, Case No. 1:16-cv-834 (TSB; SKB) (S.D. Ohio Aug. 11, 2016). Holbrook v. Pols, Case No. 1:17-cv-186 (TSB; SKB) (S.D. Ohio Mar. 20, 2017); Holbrook v. Warden, Case No. 1:17-cv-274 (WOB; KLL) (S.D. Ohio Apr. 24, 2017); Holbrook v. Warden, Case No. 1:20-cv-501 (MWM; SKB) (S.D. Ohio June 29, 2020). Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice subject to refiling in the proper venue. IT ISSO RECOMMENDED.

Wee aut A Yo wma Stephanie K. Bowman United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

CHARLES HOLBROOK, Case No. 1:20-cv-687 Plaintiff, Barrett, J. vs. Bowman, M.J.

STATE OF MICHIGAN, Defendant.

NOTICE Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).