Lucy v. Securus Technologies et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM N. LUCY,
#204880,
Plaintiff,
v.
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, et
al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 2:23-cv-742-RAH
ORDER
On January 9, 2024, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this case be
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama
pursuant to 28 U.SC. §§ 1391(b) and 1404(a). (Doc. 3 at 3.) The Magistrate Judge
recommended a transfer because the events occurred at Fountain Correctional
Facility and “Plaintiff identifies no defendants who reside in the Middle District of
Alabama, describes no events or omissions giving rise to his claims that occurred in
this district, and identifies no other basis for proper venue here.” (Id. at 2.)
On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to add the Alabama Department
of Corrections (“ADOC”) and ADOC Commissioner John Hamm as defendants.
(Doc. 4.) On January 24, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an Objection (Doc. 5) to the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. 3).
Case 1:24-cv-00028-KD-N Doc# 6 Filed 01/30/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

2
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
District Court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive
further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires that the District Court
independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest
S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990). If the party does not
object to specific factual findings, the court reviews them only for clear error. Garvey
v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff objects to the transfer of this case to the Southern District of
Alabama, specifically arguing that the ADOC and its employees are residents of
Alabama. This Court recognizes that Plaintiff seeks to name ADOC Commissioner
Hamm as a defendant. The ADOC Commissioner, however, is subject to service
throughout the State. See, e.g., Padgett v. Dunn, No. 2:20-CV-1021-WHA-JTA,
2020 WL 808498, at *1 (M.D. Ala., Dec. 1, 2020) (“Although by virtue of their
positions as Commissioner [and] Associate Commissioners . . . [the ADOC]
Defendants . . . reside in the Middle District of Alabama, they are nonetheless subject
to service of process throughout the State and commonly defend suits in all federal
courts of this state.”). Furthermore, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the
Case 1:24-cv-00028-KD-N Doc# 6 Filed 01/30/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

3
§ 1983 claims occurred at Fountain Correctional Facility in the Southern District of
Alabama. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
Upon this Court’s independent review of the record and consideration of the
the Objection and Recommendation, and for good cause, it is ORDERED as
follows:
1. The Objection (Doc. 5) is OVERRULED.
2. The Recommendation (Doc. 3) is ADOPTED.
3. This case shall be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama.
4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to take all necessary actions to
effectuate the transfer.
The Motion to Amend (Doc. 4) and Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 2) remain pending.
DONE on this the 30th day of January 2024.
R. AUSTIN HUFFAKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00028-KD-N Doc# 6 Filed 01/30/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>