United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
M. PURCELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a state pre-trial detainee appearing pro se,
initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his federal constitutional rights. Doc. No. 1.
(“Comp.”) United States District Judge Stephen P.
Friot has referred this matter to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Following the requisite screening
of Plaintiff's Complaint, the undersigned recommends the
transfer of this action to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
is a pretrial detainee held in the Muskogee County Detention
Center located in Muskogee, Oklahoma. Comp. at 4. By this
lawsuit, he complains that he has been wrongfully arrested
and charged with failure to register as a sex offender and
assault and battery by the Muskogee County Police Department.
Id. at 4, 7-8; see also Oklahoma State
Courts Network, District Court for Muskogee County, Nos.
CF-2019-150 and CF-2019-447, respectively. He has named
as Defendants in this matter the Muskogee City Police
Department, City of Muskogee Police Officer Jeremy Garcia,
and Assistant District Attorney Nalani Ching. Comp. at 4-5,
Screening of Prisoner Complaints A federal district
court must review complaints filed by prisoners seeking
relief against a governmental entity or an officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
After conducting an initial review, a court must dismiss a
complaint or any portion of it presenting claims that are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b).
one aspect of screening is reviewing whether venue is proper
“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). “[T]he
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 Constr., Inc., No. CIV-10-235-D,
2010 WL 4811450, at *6 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 19, 2010).
Analysis “[T]he term ‘venue' refers
to the geographic specification of the proper court or courts
for the litigation of a civil action . . . .” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1390(a). The proper venue for Plaintiff's action
is in the “judicial district in which any defendant
resides” or the “judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred . . . .” 28 U.S.C. §
for this matter lies in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
Based on the Complaint, it appears every “part of the
events or omissions giving rise to [Plaintiff's] claim[s]
occurred” occurred in Muskogee County, Oklahoma. The
County of Muskogee, State of Oklahoma is located within the
Eastern District of Oklahoma. 28 U.S.C. §
116(b). Thus, venue is proper in that court. 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
undersigned recommends the transfer of this action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma. Plaintiff is advised of his right to file an
objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of
this Court by October 10th, 2019, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The
failure to timely object to this Report and Recommendation
would waive appellate review of the recommended ruling.
Moore v. United States of America, 950 F.2d 656
(10th Cir. 1991); see, c.f., Marshall v. Chater, 75
F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised for
the first time in objections to the magistrate judge's
recommendation are deemed waived”).
Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to
the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.