United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
A.J. DAVIES (#85818)
JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 6) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The Report and Recommendation addresses pro
se Plaintiffs Amended Complaint Under The Civil Rights
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff, a prisoner
confined at the Louisiana State Penitentiary
("LSP"), Angola, Louisiana, filed this proceeding
in the Middle District of Louisiana pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Defendants James LeBlanc, Secretary of
the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections;
the LSP Medical Staff; LSP Warden Darryl
Vannoy; the University Medical Center in New Orleans,
Louisiana ("UMCNO"); and unknown physicians at
UMCNO who allegedly performed surgery on Plaintiff (Doc. 4 at
p. 1; Doc. 6 at p. 2). Plaintiff alleges that on an unknown
date, he was transported from LSP to UMCNO for the purpose of
having tissue samples taken from his penis. (Doc. 4 at p. 3;
Doc. 6 at p. 2). Plaintiff complains, however, that when he
awoke from the procedure, he discovered that "% of [his]
penis had been cut off." (Doc. 6 at p. 2)(quoting Doc. 4
at p. 3). Plaintiff complains that he never provided consent
for the referenced procedure, nor is there a waiver giving
Defendant UMCNO permission to conduct the procedure. (Doc. 6
at p. 2; Doc. 4 at p. 4). UMCNO is located in the Eastern
District of Louisiana.
having considered the evidence to be introduced at trial, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs case be
transferred to the Eastern District for further proceedings.
(Doc. 6 at p. 3). The Magistrate Judge noted that
"[u]nder the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)
and (2), a civil action may be brought in a judicial district
in which any defendant resides or in which a substantial part
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred." (Id. at p. 2). In addition,
"pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a),
a case filed in a [c]ourt of improper or inconvenient venue
may be transferred, in the interest of justice and for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses, to a district in
which it could have been brought." (Id. at pp.
2-3). Secretary LeBlanc's principal office is located in
the Middle District. The official duty stations of the LSP
Medical Staff, as well as Warden Vannoy, are in the Middle
the Court is satisfied that a change in venue is warranted.
The incident here occurred entirely in the Eastern District,
and the evidence to be considered by the trier of fact,
including the testimony of witnesses, is located in the
Eastern District. (Id. at p. 3). Accordingly, the
Court concludes that it is in the interest of justice to
transfer this case to the Eastern District. (Id., ).
Report and Recommendation notified the parties that, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen (14) days
from the date they received the Report and Recommendation to
file written objections to the proposed findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations therein.
(Id. at p. 1). Plaintiff timely filed an opposition
(Doc. 7). Defendants did not respond.
objects to the Report and Recommendation "to the extent
that such change in venue prejudices the plaintiffs right to
adequately assert his claim." (Doc. 7 at p. 2).
Plaintiff agrees with, and does not object to, the Magistrate
Judge's findings regarding the change of venue concerning
the various parties residing in the Eastern District.
(Id.). However, Plaintiff asserts that "the
real party in interest is the State of Louisiana through the
Louisiana Department of Corrections." (Id.).
Plaintiff further asserts that "Defendants James
LeBlanc, Darryl Vannoy, and (LSP) physician staff members all
[reside] within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United
States District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana." (Id. at p. 1). Assuming that
Plaintiff is requesting that the matter remain in the Middle
District on the basis of his assertion that "the real
party in interest" is located in the Middle District,
such contention is unsupported by law or legal authority
given that venue often is not limited to one judicial
district. In other words, transferring the suit to
the Eastern District will not deprive the Plaintiff of his
right to adequately assert a claim against those whom he has
identified as "the real party in interest." Thus,
the Court is satisfied that the Magistrate Judge applied the
correct legal standard.
carefully considered the underlying Complaint, the instant
motions, and related filings, the Court approves the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and hereby
adopts its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) is
ADOPTED as the Court's opinion herein.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be
TRANSFERRED to the Eastern District of
Louisiana for further proceedings.
 The original complaint (Doc. 1) was
amended to add as additional Defendants, the Louisiana State
Penitentiary Medical Staff, the University Medical Center in
New Orleans, Louisiana, and unknown physicians at the medical
center. (Doc. 4 at p. 2). The amended complaint also includes
an "Arguments" section to further clarify
Plaintiffs claims against Defendants (e.g., Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendment violations). (Id. at p.
 No further facts regarding the reason
for the medical procedure were provided in either
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) allows venue
in "the judicial district... in which the claim
arose." Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443
U.S. 173, 184-85 (1979) (citing Denver & R. G. W. R.
Co. v. Railroad Trainmen.,387 U.S. 556, 560 (1967)).
Congress did not intend to provide for venue at the residence
of the plaintiff or to give that party an unfettered choice
among a host of different districts. Id. Rather, it
restricted venue either to the residence of the defendants or
to "a place which may be more convenient to the
litigants"-i.e., both of them-"or to the
witnesses who are ...