United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
D. WHITNEY, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the
Complaint, (Doc. No. 1).
se Plaintiff Brandon Massey is currently incarcerated at
the Pender Correctional Institution in Burgaw, North
Carolina. He appears to seek relief from his allegedly
illegal conviction and sentence in the Middle District of
North Carolina, case number 1:07-cr-364, pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). He names as
Defendants: The United States Government, Federal Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”), and Federal BOP Medical Staff.
the allegations liberally, Plaintiff appears to allege that
he was wrongfully incarcerated on a minimum mandatory
sentence for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) that was
subsequently vacated. He seeks damages for cruel and unusual
punishment and physical, mental, and emotional trauma.
the general venue provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a
civil action may be brought in “(1) a judicial district
in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are
residents of the State in which the district is located; (2)
a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events
or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . .; 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 defendant is subject to the court's personal
jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b). For venue purposes, a “natural
person” resides in the district where the person is
domiciled. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1).
the 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) venue requirements are
satisfied, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or
the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest
of justice, ” a court may transfer a civil action to
any district where the action “might have originally
been brought.” In determining whether transfer is
appropriate, courts commonly consider the following factors:
(1) plaintiff's initial choice of the forum; (2) the
relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) availability
of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the
costs of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; (4)
possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate
to the action; (5) enforceability of a judgment if one is
obtained; (6) relative advantages and obstacles to a fair
trial; (7) all other practical problems that make a trial
easy, expeditious, and inexpensive; (8) administrative
difficulties of court congestion; (9) local interests in
having localized controversies settled at home; (10) the
appropriateness in having the trial of a diversity case in a
forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the
action; and (11) avoidance of unnecessary problems with
conflict of laws. Datasouth Computer Corp. v. Three
Dimensional Techs., Inc., 719 F.Supp. 446, 450-51 (W.D.
presently resides in Pender County in the Eastern District of
North Carolina, and he challenges a criminal conviction from
the Middle District of North Carolina. To the extent that
Plaintiff may be able to state a cognizable claim against any
Defendant,  venue would be proper in the Eastern
District or Middle District of North Carolina. The Middle
District of North Carolina appears to be the most appropriate
venue for this action because it is where a substantial part
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
reasons stated herein, this action will be transferred to the
Middle District of North Carolina, where the events at issue
are alleged to have occurred.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to transfer this action
to the Middle District of North ...