United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
EVERETT J. GILLUM, Plaintiff,
WARDEN JAMES YATES, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BERNARD M. JONES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a state prisoner appearing pro se, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his
federal constitutional rights while imprisoned at the Davis
Correctional Facility (DCF). This matter has been referred by
United States District Court Judge Scott L. Palk for proposed
findings and recommendations consistent with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and (C). For the reasons set forth below, it is
recommended that the action be transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
Court is obligated to review complaints filed by prisoners
who seek redress from governmental entities or officers or
employees of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). As part of this obligation, the Court may
consider whether venue is proper sua sponte “when the
defense is obvious from the face of the complaint and no
further factual record is required to be developed.”
Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1217 (10th Cir.
2006) (citation omitted); see also Lewis v. Ctr.
Mkt., 378 Fed.Appx. 780, 787 (10th Cir. 2010)
(unpublished) (holding that a district court may consider
venue on a § 1915 screening). Further, “the court
acting on its own motion, may raise the issue of whether a
change of venue would be in the interest of justice.”
Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. v.
Oakview Const., Inc., No. CIV-10-235-D, 2010 WL 4811450,
at *6 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 19, 2010).
is proper in a civil action in:
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if
all defendants are residents of the State in which the
district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is
the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no
district in which an action may otherwise be brought as
provided in this section, any judicial district in which any
defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction
with respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1391. Plaintiff alleges his constitutional
rights were violated at DCF and he names DCF prison officials
as Defendants. DCF is located in Holdenville, Hughes County,
Oklahoma, and Hughes County is located within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma. See 28 U.S.C. §
116(b). Accordingly, because the events or omissions giving
rise to the claims occurred in the Eastern District of
Oklahoma, venue is proper in that Court.
it is possible venue may be proper in this Court as well,
“for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in
the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any
civil action to any other district . . . where it might have
been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In this
instance, Plaintiff is confined at DCF, the defendants work
at DCF, and documents would be readily available there. As
such, it is recommended that this Court transfer this case to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma in the interest of justice.
recommended that this action, with all pleadings filed in
this Court, be transferred to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a).
OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
is advised of his right to object to this Report and
Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Any
objection must be filed with the Clerk of this District Court
by April 30, 2019. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to make timely objection to
this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate
review of the factual and legal issues addressed herein.
See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir.