Justice #696223 v. Schmidt

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ERIN JUSTICE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH SCHMIDT,
Defendant.
/
Case No. 2:26-cv-10211
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
Erin Justice is currently confined at the Thumb Correctional Facility in
Lapeer, Michigan. ECF No. 1, PageID.1. He alleged that Defendant Joseph Schmidt,
a corrections officer, violated his right to religious freedom under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act while he was incarcerated at the Brooks
Correctional Facility. ECF No. 1, PageID.1–2. For the following reasons, the Court
will transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan.
Venue is proper in “(1) the judicial district where any defendant resides, if all
defendants reside in the same state, (2) the judicial district where a substantial part
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) the judicial district
where any defendant may be found, if there is no other district in which the action
may be brought.” Bunting ex rel. Gray v. Gray, 2 F. App’x 443, 448 (6th Cir. 2001)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)).
Case 1:26-cv-01154-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/08/26 Page 1
of 3

2
Here, venue is not proper in the Eastern District of Michigan. First, public
officials “reside” in the county where they serve when they are sued in their official
capacities. See O’Neill v. Battisti, 472 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1972). And Plaintiff sued
Defendant Schmidt in both his individual and official capacities. See ECF No. 1,
PageID.1. Therefore, Defendant, at least in his official capacity, resides in the
Western District of Michigan. Second, the complaint alleged that the events at issue
“occurred at the Brooks Correctional Facility” in Muskegon Heights, Michigan.
Muskegon Heights is located in the Western District of Michigan. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 102(b)(1). Accordingly, the action should have been brought in the Western District.
If a court concludes that venue is improper, it has two options. It may dismiss
the case, “or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or
division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). A district court
must “weigh the relevant factors and decide whether, on balance, a transfer would
serve ‘the convenience of parties and witnesses’ and otherwise promote ‘the interest
of justice.’” Atl. Marine Constr. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tx., 571 U.S.
49, 62–63 (2013) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)).
Here, the interest of justice warrant transfer rather than dismissal. Given that
Plaintiff is currently confined in prison, the Court finds that transferring rather than
requiring Plaintiff to refile the case is the more convenient and just course of action.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall
TRANSFER the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Case 1:26-cv-01154-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/08/26 Page 2
of 3

3
Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
SO ORDERED.
s/ Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: April 8, 2026
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on April 8, 2026, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager
Case 1:26-cv-01154-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/08/26 Page 3
of 3