UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
January 27, 2010
KEVIN KENNITH BLEACHER, PLAINTIFF
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON, LANCASTER COUNTY DETECTIVE ANDREW MORGAN AND UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Smyser
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 25, 2010, the plaintiff commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action by filing a complaint. The plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
The plaintiff alleges that he is a citizen of Lancaster County. The plaintiff names as defendants the Lancaster County Prison, Lancaster County Detective Andrew Morgan and unidentified persons. The plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully arrested by Detective Morgan due to an unconstitutional practice or policy of the Lancaster County Prison. The plaintiff asserts that he will detail the alleged violation in an amended complaint.
28 U.S.C. §1391(b) is the venue provision for federal question cases. Section 1391(b) provides:
A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (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) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
Although the plaintiff's complaint is not clear, it appears that the plaintiff's claim concerns events that occurred in Lancaster County. Lancaster County is in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim concerns events that occurred in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The Lancaster County Prison is in Lancaster. Given that defendant Morgan is alleged to be a Lancaster County detective it is reasonable to infer that he resides in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The plaintiff has not alleged facts that would lay venue in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Venue in this case is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
It is recommended that this action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
J. Andrew Smyser Magistrate Judge
Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommen- dation pursuant to Rule 72.3 of the Rules of Court, M.D.Pa., which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.