Hunt #745089 v. Kline

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JERMAINE CHRISTOPHER HUNT,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN KLINE,
Defendant.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1429
Honorable Ray Kent
ORDER OF TRANSFER
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
presently is incarcerated at the St. Louis Correctional Facility (SLF) in St. Louis, Gratiot County,
Michigan, though the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred at the Saginaw County
Correctional Facility (SRF) in Freeland, Saginaw County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues Corrections
Officer Unknown Kline. In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Kline left his cell
unlocked for three hours on May 13, 2025, despite knowing that Plaintiff had been threatened by
another inmate. Plaintiff states that during the time his cell was unlocked, he was seriously
assaulted and suffered a concussion. Plaintiff claims that he continues to have headaches and
emotional problems as a result. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2–3.)
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 Saginaw
County. Defendants are public officials serving in Saginaw County, and they “reside” in that
county for purposes of venue over a suit challenging official acts. See Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U.S.
Case 1:25-cv-01429-RSK ECF No. 4, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 2

2
128, 132 (1885); O’Neill v. Battisti, 472 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1972). Saginaw County is within
the 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. 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, nor has the Court reviewed
Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A, or under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
Dated: 	November 18, 2025 	/s/ Ray Kent
RAY KENT
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01429-RSK ECF No. 4, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 2