-RRA Hamalowa v. Holt et al, No. 1:2010cv02515 - Document 2 (N.D. Ala. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION that this case is TRANSFERRED to the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 9/16/10. (dr) [Transferred from Georgia Northern on 9/16/2010.]

Download PDF
-RRA Hamalowa v. Holt et al Doc. 2 FilED IN THOMAS v CHAMBEns v. U. S. D. C THR4-' JFl. ,;,Ii . Atlanta IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP 1 6 20tG FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEqRM£!s(J;JpHAfTe ATLANTA DIVISION Y.J,. N.ClerI( . CLIFTON N. HAMALOWA, BOP No. 44539-008, Plaintiff, v. ; Deputy Clerk PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS 28 U.S.C. § 1331 CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-2826-TWT RAY HOLT, et aI., Defendants. ORDER AND OPINION Clifton Hamalowa is an inmate in the Federal Correctional Institution in Talladega, Alabama. Ptoccedingpro se, Hamalowa filed a Bivens! action stating five claims for relief [1]. In summary: Hamalowa's first claim is that he was denied dinner on October 21, 2009; his second claim is that he was denied breakfast on October 22, 2009; his third claim is that excessive force was used "in extracting Plaintiff and his cell-mate from the cell;" his fourth claim is that when he "asked that his whole body be examined," a prison nurse declined to do so; and his fifth claim is that restraints were applied too tightly, causing pain and preventing him from eating, drinking, and using the toilet [I at 1-5]. Hamalowa acknowledges that "all events happened in" FCI-Talladega [1 at I]. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents 0/Fed. Bureau o/Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 1 AO 72A (Rev.8182) Dockets.Justia.com Hamalowa identifies eighteen defendants in the caption of his complaint. Hamalowa acknowledges that at least fourteen of the defendants are or were "employed at FCl Talladega" [I at 1]. The other four defendants either "came to FCl Talladega" or were "sen[t]" on unspecified dates [1 at 1]. Substantially all, if not all, of the defendants are employees ofthe United States. Federal law provides that a "civil action in which a defendant is an ... employee of the United States [can] be brought in any judicial district in which ... a substantial part ofthe events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). As noted above, Hamalowa stated that "all events occurred in" FCl-Talladega [I at 1]. FCl-Talladega is located in the Northern District of Alabama. Hamalowa might appropriately have filed his complaint there. Nowhere in his complaint does Hamalowa indicate why he believes venue lies in the Northern District of Georgia. Even assuming venue lies here, this case has only very attenuated connections to the Northern District of Georgia. As Hamalowa acknowledged, substantially all the parties and witnesses are located in Alabama [I at I]. Federal law provides that "[t]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest ofjustice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.c. § 1404(a). Based on the information alleged in Hamalowa's complaint, this Court finds that, 2 A072A (Rev.8/82) II 'I for the convenience ofparties and witnesses, in the interests ofjustice, this action ought to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. This case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to forward all filings in this case to that court. IT IS SO ORDERED, this day of ,2010. THOMAS W. THRASH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 A072A (Rev.8182)
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.