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. 	) 	CASE NO. 2:23-CV-742-RAH-CSC
)
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., )
)
Defendants. 	)
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Fountain Correctional Facility in Atmore,
Alabama, filed this hand-written Complaint which has been docketed under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. He names as defendants Securus Technologies, Inc., the Chairman of the Board of
Directors of Securus, the President of Securus, the Chief Executive Officer of Securus, and
Captain K. Albritton in her official and individual capacities. Plaintiff’s Complaint
concerns a dispute over charges deducted from his PMOD (“Prisoner Money on Deposit”)
account for a communications device sold to him and maintained by Securus Technologies
which Plaintiff alleges has not worked for the past four months. Doc. 1. For relief, Plaintiff
requests trial by jury and $500,000 each in punitive and compensatory damages. Id. at 3.
Upon review, the Court finds this case should be transferred to the United States
Case 1:24-cv-00028-KD-N Doc# 3 Filed 01/09/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>

2
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404.1
II. 	DISCUSSION
A 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “action may be brought in—(1) a judicial district in which any
defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred ...; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be
brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject
to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The
law further provides that “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district ... where it might
have been brought ...” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The actions described in Plaintiff’s Complaint occurred or are occurring at the
Fountain Correctional Facility which is in the Southern District of Alabama. 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. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the proper venue for
1 On filing the Complaint Plaintiff filed a motion in support of a request for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. Doc. 2. The assessment and collection of any filing fees, however, should be
undertaken by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
Case 1:24-cv-00028-KD-N Doc# 3 Filed 01/09/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>

3
this action is the Southern District of Alabama, and it is due to be transferred under 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a).2
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this case be
TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama
under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Further, it is ORDERED that by January 23, 2024, the parties may file objections
to this Recommendation. The parties must specifically identify the factual findings and
legal 	conclusions 	in 	the 	Recommendation 	to 	which 	objection 	is 	made. 	Frivolous,
conclusive 	or 	general 	objections 	will 	not 	be 	considered 	by 	the 	Court. 	This
Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) will bar a party from a de novo determination by
the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waive
the right of the party to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on unobjected-
to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon
grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. 11TH Cir. R. 3–1. See Resol. Tr. Corp. v.
Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); 	Henley v. Johnson, 885
F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).
2In transferring this case, the Court makes no determination with respect to the merits of the claims
presented in the Complaint.
Case 1:24-cv-00028-KD-N Doc# 3 Filed 01/09/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>

4
Done, this 9th day of January 2024.
/s/ Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00028-KD-N Doc# 3 Filed 01/09/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>