Goldstein v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al, No. 8:2018cv00294 - Document 3 (D. Md. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER transferring this case to the USDC for the Easter District of Virginia; staying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 4/30/2018. (c/m 05/01/2018 - jf3s, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF

Goldstein v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Southern Division * DAVID SCOTT GOLDSTEIN, #454530, * Case No.: G.JH-18-294 Plaintiff, * v. * COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, GOVERNOR RALPH NORTHAM, * * Defendants. * * * * * * MEMORANDUM * * OPINION * * * Complaint * AND ORDER On January 26. 2018, the Clerk received for filing the above-captioned represented * three-page self .. for damages from David Scott Goldstein, who is detained at the Baltimore County Detention Center ('"BCDC") in Towson. Maryland. ECF NO.1. The Complaint. tiled against the Commonwealth of Virginia and Virginia Governor Ralph N0l1ham, alleges that Goldstein was detained at the Henrico County Jail from September 23, 2016 to April 10,2017, on unspecified Department offenses. He appears to claim that he was moved to the Virginia of Corrections time for his misdemeanor and violates the prohibition to serve a ten month. two week term and this resulted in him serving otfense twice. He complains that this constitutes against double jeopardy. false imprisonment lei. at 3. He seeks $2.000.000.00 in damages for pain and suffering. Id. at 4. For reasons to follow. the Complaint shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. I Plaintiff has filed a Motion lor Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. stayed pending review by the transferee court. I ECF NO.2. A decision 011 this Motion shall be Dockets.Justia.com Defendants claims occurred are all located in Virginia and all events which gave rise to Goldstein's in Virginia. Under Title 28 U.S.c. ~ 1391 (b). a civil action may be brought in-- (1) ajudicial district in which any defendant of the State in which the district is located: resides. ifall defendants are residents (2) ajudicial 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) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section. any judicial district in which any delcndant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. In enacting ~ 1391 (b). it is evident that Congress did not intend to provide for venue at the residence of the plainti ITor to give that party an unfettered choice among di rterent districts. Rather. Congress intended to restrict venue to "either the residence of the defendants place which may be more convenient to the litigants-i.e .. both of them-or or to a to the witnesses who are to testi fy in the case'" Leroy v. (lreal Weslem Uniled. 443 U.S. 173. 185 (1979) (internal citation omitted). protect the defendant In most cases. the purpose of a statutorily speci lied venue statute is to against the risk that a plaintiff will select an unfair or inconvenient place for trial. Id. at 183-84. The named Defendants incarceration Maryland. are located in Virginia. Further. Plaintiffs occurred in Henrico County. Virginia. The underlying Assuming. civil rights allegation. ~ 1406(a). See III without deciding. that Goldstein arrest. prosecution case has no connection and to has stated a colorable 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983 the claim should be brought in the Eastern District of Virginia. 28 U.S.c. re Care.!lrsl q/Mwy/alld. Inc.. 305 F.3d 253. 255-256 (4th Cir. 2002) (transfer of case under ~ 1406(a) to any district which would have had venue if the case was originally brought in that district); Wayles 1'. Cily olChar/ollesl'i//e. 2 153 F.3d 725 (4th Cir. 1(98) (when confronted with a case laying venue in the wrong district. district court is statutorily obligated to dismiss the case unless transferring the case to a district where the action could have been brought is in the interest of justice). Based on the CourCs finding in the current action. transfer will occur pursuant to * 1406(a) to the United States District Court lar the Eastcrn District of Virginia for all further proceedings. Thercfc)re. it is hereby ORDERED. District of Maryland. by the Uilited Stated District Court for the that: 1. The CLERK SHALL TRANSFER * 1406(a). Spottswood to the United Stated District Court lar the Eastern District of Virginia W. Robinson [[I & Robert R. Merhige . .Ir. U.S. Courthousc. Broad Street. Suite 3000. Richmond. as may be deemed appropriate 2. the case file. pursuant to 28 U.S.c. Decision as to Plaintiffs NO.2. IS STAYED 701 Virginia 23219. lar all further proceedings by that court: Motion lar Leave to Proceed [n Forma Pauperis. ECF pending review by the Transfcrec 3. The Clerk SHALL MAIL a copy of this Memorandum Court: and Opinion and Order to Plaintiff. Dated: April 30. 2018 GEORGE.r. HAZEL United States District Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.