Buy This Entire Record For
Williams v. Wetzel
United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
January 11, 2017
MARK-ALONZO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
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.
Pupo Lenihan Magistrate Judge
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
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.
Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this