Bullard #186819 v. Washington et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEITH BULLARD,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-12917
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER OF TRANSFER
Michigan prisoner Keith Bullard (“Bullard”), currently confined at the
Macomb Correctional Facility in Lennox Township, Michigan, has filed a pro se
civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Dkt. 1), as well as an application
to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee (Dkt. 2). In his complaint, Bullard
raises claims concerning events that occurred in 2024 while he was confined at the
Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility (“LRF”) in Muskegon Heights, Michigan.
He names Michigan Department of Corrections Director Heidi Washington, LRF
Warden Chris King, and LRF Corrections Officer Lieutenant Moore as the
defendants in this action. He sues the defendants in their personal capacities and
seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief (Dkt. 1).
Case 1:25-cv-01484-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Having reviewed the matter, the Court concludes that venue is improper in
this Court and that the case should be transferred to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan. Venue for a civil action brought in federal
district court is governed by 28 U.S.C. 1391. Section 1391(b) provides:
Venue in general. A civil 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 a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the action
is situated; 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). Public officials “reside” in the county where they perform
their official duties. O’Neill v. Battisti, 472 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1972). When
venue is improper, a district court may either dismiss the case or, in the interests of
justice, transfer the case to a district or division where it could have been brought.
28 U.S.C. 1406(a).
Additionally, even when venue is proper, a district court may transfer a civil
action to any other district where it might have been brought for the convenience of
Case 1:25-cv-01484-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 3

3
the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). A
court may sua sponte transfer a case for improper venue. Carver v. Knox Co.,
Tenn., 887 F.2d 1287, 1291 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Cosmichrome, Inc. v. Spectra
Chrome, Inc. LLC, 504 F. App’x 468, 472 (6th Cir. 2012).
Defendant Washington resides in Ingham County and Defendants King and
Moore reside in Muskegon County for purposes of the present complaint and the
events giving rise to the complaint occurred in Muskegon County. Ingham County
and Muskegon County are both located in the Western District of Michigan. See
28 U.S.C. 102(b). Venue is therefore proper in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan, not this Court. The Western District is also a
more convenient forum.
Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) and/or 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), the
Court orders the Clerk of the Court to transfer this case to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Michigan. The Court makes no determination as
the merits of the complaint or any pending motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2025 	s/Mark A. Goldsmith
Detroit, Michigan 	MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01484-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 3