Snider 834248 v. Wendt

• Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
• Decided: September 19, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01039
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______

JOSHUA SNIDER,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-1039

v. Honorable Ray Kent

UNKNOWN WENDT 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 Macomb Correctional Facility (MRF) in New Haven, Macomb County, Michigan, though the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (JCF) in Jackson, Jackson County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues the following JCF staff: Assistant Deputy Warden Unknown Wendt, and Prison Counselor/Assistant Residential Unit Supervisor Unknown Young. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) In the pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to protect Plaintiff from harm after Plaintiff filed a Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) complaint against Plaintiff’s “bunkie.” (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 Jackson County. Defendants are public officials serving in Jackson 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). Jackson 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: September 19, 2025 /s/ Ray Kent RAY KENT United States Magistrate Judge