Wireman 476220 v. Guerin

• Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
• Decided: September 11, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00210
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION ______

BRANDEN MICHAEL WIREMAN,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-210

v. Honorable Ray Kent

M. GUERIN 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 Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Chippewa County, Michigan; however, the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred at the Saginaw Correctional Facility (SRF) in Freeland, Saginaw County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues the following SRF staff: Assistant Deputy Warden M. Guerin, Warden A. Douglas, Resident Unit Manager Unknown Smith, Prison Counselor Unknown Perkins, and Captain Unknown Justice. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff presents claims regarding his security classification and housing placement during his incarceration at SRF from December of 2024 to July of 2025. (See id., 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 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 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, 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 11, 2025 /s/ Ray Kent Ray Kent United States Magistrate Judge