Jermaine Christopher Hunt v. Unknown Kline

E.D. Michigan

Jermaine Christopher Hunt v. Unknown Kline

DecidedNovember 19, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-13698

StatusUnknown

This text of Jermaine Christopher Hunt v. Unknown Kline (Jermaine Christopher Hunt v. Unknown Kline) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jermaine Christopher Hunt v. Unknown Kline, (E.D. Mich. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______

JERMAINE CHRISTOPHER HUNT,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-1429

v. Honorable Ray Kent

UNKNOWN KLINE,

Defendant. ____________________________/ 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 St. Louis Correctional Facility (SLF) in St. Louis, Gratiot County, Michigan, though the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred at the Saginaw County Correctional Facility (SRF) in Freeland, Saginaw County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues Corrections Officer Unknown Kline. In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Kline left his cell unlocked for three hours on May 13, 2025, despite knowing that Plaintiff had been threatened by another inmate. Plaintiff states that during the time his cell was unlocked, he was seriously assaulted and suffered a concussion. Plaintiff claims that he continues to have headaches and emotional problems as a result. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2–3.) 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 Saginaw County. Defendants are public officials serving in Saginaw 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). Saginaw 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 18, 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______

JERMAINE CHRISTOPHER HUNT,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-1429

v. Honorable Ray Kent

UNKNOWN KLINE,

Defendant. ____________________________/ 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 St. Louis Correctional Facility (SLF) in St. Louis, Gratiot County, Michigan, though the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred at the Saginaw County Correctional Facility (SRF) in Freeland, Saginaw County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues Corrections Officer Unknown Kline. In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Kline left his cell unlocked for three hours on May 13, 2025, despite knowing that Plaintiff had been threatened by another inmate. Plaintiff states that during the time his cell was unlocked, he was seriously assaulted and suffered a concussion. Plaintiff claims that he continues to have headaches and emotional problems as a result. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2–3.) 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 Saginaw County. Defendants are public officials serving in Saginaw 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). Saginaw 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 18, 2025 /s/ Ray Kent RAY KENT United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jermaine Christopher Hunt v. Unknown Kline, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jermaine-christopher-hunt-v-unknown-kline-mied-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack