Walsh v. Billy et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
MELBA JOYCE MCDANIEL WALSH, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	Case No. 2:24-cv-598-RAH-CSC
) 	(WO)
STEPHEN BILLY, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff Melba Joyce McDaniel Walsh filed this complaint on a
form used by inmates for filing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions. Doc. 1. Walsh names as
defendants District Attorney Stephen Billy, Chief of Police Kenneth Brazil, and Police
Officer Russell Clausdell. Id. at 1. She challenges actions by the named defendants that
occurred in relation to her 2020 arrest for multiple felonies in East Brewton, Alabama, and
the ensuing criminal proceedings that resulted in her conviction in the Circuit Court of
Escambia County, Alabama. Id. at 1–8. Upon consideration of Walsh’s complaint, the
Court finds this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 28 U.S.C. § 1404.1
1 Upon filing the complaint, Walsh 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-00396-KD-N Doc# 3 Filed 10/02/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

2
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 Walsh’s complaint
all occurred in Escambia County, which is located in the federal jurisdiction for the
Southern District of Alabama. Walsh identifies no defendant who resides within the federal
jurisdiction for the Middle District of Alabama, and the addresses she provides for the three
defendants named in her complaint are in Brewton and East Brewton, cities in Escambia
County. She describes no events or omissions giving rise to her claims that occurred in the
Middle District of Alabama, and she identifies no other basis for proper venue in the Middle
District. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the proper venue for Walsh’s action is the
Southern District of Alabama, and this case is due to be transferred under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a).2
2 In recommending transfer of this case, the Court makes no determination on the merits of the
claims presented in the complaint.
Case 1:24-cv-00396-KD-N Doc# 3 Filed 10/02/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

3
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that 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).
It 	is 	further 	ORDERED 	that 	the 	parties 	shall 	file 	any 	objections 	to 	this
Recommendation by October 16, 2024. A party 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. Failure to file written
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations under the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District
Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives 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. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11 TH
CIR . R. 3-1. See Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
DONE this 2nd day of October, 2024.
/s/ Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00396-KD-N Doc# 3 Filed 10/02/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>