Watkins 854203 v. Cotton Correctional Facility

• Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
• Decided: August 14, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00870
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______

AUSTIN WATKINS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-870

v. Honorable Ray Kent

COTTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

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 Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility (IBC) in Ionia, Ionia 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 “Cotton Correctional Facility,” presumably JCF.1 In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges that staff at JCF sent him to segregation for two months without giving him a reason or a hearing in violation of his due process rights. Plaintiff also asserts that staff defamed him by calling him a drug dealer, “Smuggle Man,” and “King Pin.” (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.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 Jackson County. Defendant JCF is located in Jackson County and “reside[s]” in that county for purposes

1 The Court further notes that Plaintiff fails to name any individual defendants or to allege any specific facts in support of his claim. 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: August 14, 2025 /s/ Ray Kent Ray Kent United States Magistrate Judge