Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Wetzel

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

January 11, 2017

MARK-ALONZO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN WETZEL, Secretary of the PA Department of Corrections, MICHAEL KLOPOTOSKI, Regional Superintendent, MICHAEL MAHALLY, Superintendent, SCI Dallas, VINCENT MOONEY, Superintendent, SCI Coal, JOSEPH ZAKARAUSKAS, Deputy Superintendent, SCI Dallas, SUPERINTENDENT NORMAN DEMMING, Deputy Superintendent, SCI Dallas, MR. PALL, Captain, SCI Dallas, JOSEPH FYE, Corrections Officer, Defendants.

          ORDER

          Lisa Pupo Lenihan Magistrate Judge

         AND NOW, this 11th day of January, 2017, upon consideration of the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7) filed by Plaintiff Mark-Alonzo Williams (“Plaintiff”), and it appearing that the action should have been brought before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, see 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“For convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”); see also Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995) (stating factors to consider when deciding whether to transfer case), because Plaintiff is alleging claims against the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and numerous DOC employees who work at SCI-Dallas, all located within the Middle District of Pennsylvania, see Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879 (stating that location of parties is a factor) for conduct that primarily occurred at SCI-Dallas, located within the Middle District of Pennsylvania, see id. (stating that where claim arose is a factor), because discovery, if any, may involve witnesses and documents located within that district, see id. (stating that location of witnesses and discoverable evidence is a factor), and because that district likely has a strong interest in deciding this controversy, see id. (stating that local interest in deciding case is a factor), and the Court finding that practical and economic considerations of conducting discovery and trial in a location near the parties and witnesses weigh in favor of transfer, see id. (stating that public and practical considerations are factors); see also Hill v. Guidant Corp., 76 F.Supp. 566, 570-71 (M.D. Pa. 1999) (stating that in considering transfer of case, convenience of non-party witnesses residing more than 100 miles from the court weigh heavily), and it would be in the interests of justice and judicial economy to transfer this case because it does not appear that any of the alleged events occurred within this district, it is hereby ORDERED that;

         1. The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer the above-captioned case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879.

         2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.