Michael Maurice Benning v. Unknown Morse et al.

W.D. Michigan

Michael Maurice Benning v. Unknown Morse et al.

DecidedDecember 3, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-01602

StatusUnknown

This text of Michael Maurice Benning v. Unknown Morse et al. (Michael Maurice Benning v. Unknown Morse et al.) 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.

Bluebook

Michael Maurice Benning v. Unknown Morse et al., (W.D. Mich. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______

MICHAEL MAURICE BENNING,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-1602

v. Honorable Ray Kent

UNKNOWN MORSE 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 St. Louis Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Gratiot County, Michigan. The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred at the Central Michigan Correctional Facility (STF), which is also in St. Louis, Gratiot County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues the following STF personnel: Correctional Officer Unknown Morse, Correctional Officer Unknown Coston, Correctional Officer Unknown Volt, and Resident Unit Manager Unknown White. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.1, 2.) In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff presents claims regarding events that occurred during his incarceration at STF. (See generally id.) 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 Gratiot County. Defendants are public officials serving in Gratiot 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). Gratiot 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 of Michigan. 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 and motion to appoint counsel, and this Court has not reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, or 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).

Dated: December 3, 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 ______

MICHAEL MAURICE BENNING,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-1602

v. Honorable Ray Kent

UNKNOWN MORSE 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 St. Louis Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Gratiot County, Michigan. The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred at the Central Michigan Correctional Facility (STF), which is also in St. Louis, Gratiot County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues the following STF personnel: Correctional Officer Unknown Morse, Correctional Officer Unknown Coston, Correctional Officer Unknown Volt, and Resident Unit Manager Unknown White. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.1, 2.) In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff presents claims regarding events that occurred during his incarceration at STF. (See generally id.) 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 Gratiot County. Defendants are public officials serving in Gratiot 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). Gratiot 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 of Michigan. 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 and motion to appoint counsel, and this Court has not reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, or 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).

Dated: December 3, 2025 /s/ Ray Kent Ray Kent United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Michael Maurice Benning v. Unknown Morse et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-maurice-benning-v-unknown-morse-et-al-miwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack