Benning #723124 v. Morse et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
MICHAEL MAURICE BENNING,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN MORSE et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1602
Honorable Ray Kent
ORDER OF TRANSFER
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is
presently incarcerated at the St. Louis Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Gratiot County, Michigan.
The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred at the Central Michigan Correctional Facility
(STF), which is also in St. Louis, Gratiot County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues the following STF
personnel: 	Correctional 	Officer 	Unknown 	Morse, 	Correctional 	Officer 	Unknown 	Coston,
Correctional Officer Unknown Volt, and Resident Unit Manager Unknown White. (Compl., ECF
No. 1, PageID.1, 2.) In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff presents claims regarding events that
occurred during his incarceration at STF. (See generally id.)
Under the revised venue statute, venue in federal-question cases lies in the district in which
any defendant resides or in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The events underlying the complaint occurred in Gratiot
County. Defendants are public officials serving in Gratiot County, and they “reside” in that county
for purposes of venue over a suit challenging official acts. See Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U.S. 128,
132 (1885); O’Neill v. Battisti, 472 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1972). Gratiot County is within the
Case 1:25-cv-01602-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 2

2
geographical boundaries of the Eastern District of Michigan. 28 U.S.C. § 102(a). In these
circumstances, venue is proper only in the Eastern District of Michigan. Therefore:
IT IS ORDERED that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). It is noted that this Court has not
decided Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and motion to appoint counsel, and
this Court has not reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A,
or 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
Dated: 	December 3, 2025 	/s/ Ray Kent
Ray Kent
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01602-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 2