Smith v. International Solutions, Inc., No. 1:2020cv00537 - Document 3 (E.D. Tex. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING VENUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 12/22/2020. (kcv, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. International Solutions, Inc. Doc. 3 Case 1:20-cv-00537-TH-ZJH Document 3 Filed 12/22/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION ELDON RAY SMITH § VS. § INTERNATIONAL SOLUTIONS, INC. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20cv537 MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING VENUE Plaintiff Eldon Ray Smith, an inmate confined in the Wynne Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, brings this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against International Solutions, Inc. The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. Factual Background Plaintiff sues the defendant seeking reimbursement under a lifetime medical policy for medical care provided to him on August 30, 2019. Additionally, plaintiff seeks compensation for pain and suffering. Analysis The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1981, et seq., under which this case is brought, does not contain a specific venue provision. Accordingly, venue in civil rights cases is controlled by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Jones v. Bailey, 58 F.R.D. 453 (N.D. Ga. 1972), aff’d per curium, 480 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1973). Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00537-TH-ZJH Document 3 Filed 12/22/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 15 When, as in this case, jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1391 provides that venue is proper only in the judicial district where the defendants reside or in which the claim arose. Plaintiff states that the defendant is located in Arlington, Texas. Additionally, plaintiff’s claims arose at the defendant’s place of business in Arlington, Texas where the alleged denial of coverage took place. Arlington is located in Tarrant County, Texas which is in the Northern District of Texas. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 124, Tarrant County is in the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas. As Tarrant County is located in the Northern District of Texas, venue in the Eastern District of Texas is not proper. When venue is not proper, the court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). This case should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. An appropriate order so providing will be entered by the undersigned. SIGNED this 22nd day of December, 2020. _________________________ Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge 2
]]>
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.
