Stenberg #124629 v. Groff, et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EDWARD ALBERT STENBERG,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUZANNE GROFF, MARGARET
OUELLETTE, JAMES BLESSMAN,
CARMEN McINTYRE,
WELLPATH/GRAND PRAIRIE
HEALTH CARE, BRYAN
MORRISON, MARY HOWARD,
RICKEY COLEMAN, TERI
MASSEY, HEIDI WASHINGTON,
JEFFERY BOMBER, JOHN DOE, and
JANE DOE,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:24-cv-13112
District Judge Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman
_________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART MDOC
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, OR ALTERNATIVELY, TO
CHANGE VENUE (ECF No. 39)
AND
TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ REMAINING
MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF Nos. 33, 57)1
I. 	Introduction
This is a prisoner civil rights case. Plaintiff Edward Stenberg, proceeding
1 Upon review of the parties’ papers, the undersigned deems this matter appropriate
for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(f)(1).
Case 1:26-cv-00559-MV ECF No. 96, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 12

2
pro se, is suing defendants Suzanne Groff, Margaret Ouellette, James Blessman,
Carmen McIntyre, Wellpath/Grand Prairie Health Care (Wellpath), Mary Howard,
Rickey Coleman, Teri Massey, Heidi Washington, Jeffery Bomber, John Doe, and
Jane Doe alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation
of the Eighth Amendment. 2 At all relevant times, he was housed at either the
Lakeland Correctional Facility (LCF) in the Western District of Michigan or the
Thumb Correctional Facility (TCF) in the Eastern District of Michigan. See ECF
No. 1. All named defendants except for Howard have been served and appeared in
the case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), all pretrial matters have been referred to
the undersigned. (ECF No. 25).
Before the Court are three motions: a motion to dismiss filed by Coleman
and Massey (ECF No. 33); a motion to dismiss, or alternatively, to transfer venue
by Blessman, McIntyre, Morrison, and Washington (“MDOC Defendants”) (ECF
No. 39); and a motion to dismiss by Wellpath (ECF No. 57). Stenberg has
responded to all three motions (ECF Nos. 65, 52, 75) and defendants have replied
(ECF Nos. 72, 55, 88). Stenberg filed a second, unauthorized response to Coleman
and Massey’s motion (ECF No. 80) and Coleman and Massey filed a second reply
2 Although Bryan Morrison still appears on the docket and is listed as one of the
MDOC defendants who filed the motion to dismiss at ECF No. 39, he is not listed
as a defendant in Stenberg’s second amended complaint, which is operative. See
ECF No. 14.
Case 1:26-cv-00559-MV ECF No. 96, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 12

3
(ECF No. 82). Stenberg also filed a surreply to Wellpath’s motion with leave of
the Court. (ECF No. 94). The motions are now ready for consideration.
For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that
Blessman, McIntyre, Morrison, and Washington’s motion be GRANTED IN
PART and that venue be transferred to the Western District of Michigan. As venue
is more convenient in the Western District, the remaining motions to dismiss
should be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with the opportunity to refile in the
Western District.
II. 	Background
Stenberg filed his original complaint, containing 533 pages, on November
22, 2024. (ECF No. 1). That same day, he filed a motion to appoint counsel (ECF
No. 2) and a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 3). On December 9,
2024, he filed a motion for emergency hearing on his request for a preliminary
injunction. (ECF No. 8). The next day, the district judge ordered Stenberg to file
an amended complaint that complied with the pleading requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8, (ECF No. 9), and dismissed all of Stenberg’s motions pending his
amended complaint. (ECF No. 10). At that point, no defendants had yet been
served. Stenberg filed his amended complaint, containing 143 pages and 14
counts, on January 15, 2025. (ECF No. 14). On February 7, 2025, the district
judge directed service by the US Marshal. (ECF No. 15).
Case 1:26-cv-00559-MV ECF No. 96, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 3 of 12

4
On April 17, 2025, Coleman and Massey filed their motion to dismiss for
violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and for failure to state a claim.
(ECF No. 33). On April 30, 2025, Blessman, McIntyre, Morrison, and Washington
filed their motion to dismiss for improper venue, or alternatively, to transfer venue
to the Western District of Michigan. (ECF No. 39). Finally, on June 16, 2025,
Wellpath filed its motion to dismiss based on its bankruptcy discharge. (ECF No.
57).
III. 	Legal Standard
As noted above, the undersigned recommends that this case be determined
on the basis of venue. A case may be dismissed or transferred under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for improper venue. “On a motion to dismiss for
improper venue, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that venue is proper.”
Audi AG & Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Izumi, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1017 (E.D.
Mich. 2002). “The Court may examine facts outside the complaint but must draw
all reasonable inferences and resolve factual conflicts in favor of the plaintiff.” Id.
“If a defendant prevails on a Rule 12(b)(3) challenge, the Court has the discretion
to decide whether the action should be dismissed or transferred to an appropriate
court.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1406).
IV. 	Discussion
As a preliminary matter, the MDOC Defendants’ motion to dismiss for
Case 1:26-cv-00559-MV ECF No. 96, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 4 of 12

5
improper venue, or alternatively, to transfer venue should be addressed first
because “[b]efore deciding the case on the merits, the Court ought to determine
whether it is the appropriate venue for such a decision in the first place.” Pro REO
Settlement Servs., LLC v. LendingTree, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 3d 749, 752–53 (N.D.
Ohio 2025); Amphion, Inc. v. Buckeye Elec. Co., 285 F. Supp. 2d 943, 945 (E.D.
Mich. 2003) (“As a threshold matter, this Court will address the venue issues.”).
MDOC Defendants argue that the case should be dismissed because venue is
improper in the Eastern District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), or in the
alternative, that the case should be transferred to the Western District of Michigan
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) or 1406(a). (ECF No. 39).3 These arguments will be
addressed in turn.
A. 	Proper Venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), “[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
3 Counsel for MDOC Defendants indicated that he sought concurrence from the
remaining defendants and Massey and Coleman did not concur with or oppose the
motion, while the remaining defendants concurred with the motion. (Id.,
PageID.1465).
Case 1:26-cv-00559-MV ECF No. 96, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 5 of 12

6
is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
“In cases with multiple defendants, venue must be proper with respect to all
defendants.” Overland, Inc. v. Taylor, 79 F. Supp. 2d 809, 811 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
Here, Stenberg is suing twelve defendants, as follows: Groff and Ouellette,
who work at LCF; Blessman, McIntyre, and Washington, who work at the central
MDOC office; Coleman, Howard, Bomber, John Doe, and Jane Doe, who are
medical providers involved in some way with Stenberg’s medical care at LCF;
Massey, who works at TCF; and Wellpath.
Although it is clear that a substantial portion of the events giving rise to
Stenberg’s claims arose in the Western District rather than the Eastern District, the
Court is unable to determine whether venue is improper in the Eastern District
because MDOC Defendants do not address the first possibility for proper venue –
defendants’ residence. If all defendants are residents of Michigan, then venue
would be proper in either the Eastern or Western District because individual
defendants appear to reside in both districts. However, MDOC Defendants do not
affirmatively address this, nor do they address Wellpath’s residence for purposes
of determining the proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. As such, MDOC
Defendants’ request to dismiss for improper venue should be denied.
B. 	Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
Even if venue is proper in the Eastern District, MDOC Defendants argue that
Case 1:26-cv-00559-MV ECF No. 96, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 6 of 12

7
the case should be transferred to the Western District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a) for the convenience of the parties and witnesses because nearly all the
events that form the basis for the complaint happened at LCF, which is located in
the Western District. The undersigned agrees.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “a district court may transfer any civil action to
any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or
division to which all parties have consented.” The Court may transfer the matter
when “(1) the action could have been brought in the transferee district court; (2) a
transfer serves the interest of justice; and (3) a transfer is in the convenience of the
witnesses and parties.” Kepler v. ITT Sheraton Corp., 860 F. Supp. 393, 398 (E.D.
Mich. 1994). In analyzing the second and third criteria, courts consider the
following factors:
(1) the convenience of witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents
and relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of
the parties; (4) the locus of the operative facts; (5) the availability of
process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative
means of the parties; (7) the forum’s familiarity with the governing law;
(8) the weight accorded the plaintiff’s choice of forum; and (9) trial
efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the totality of the
circumstances.
Overland, Inc. v. Taylor, 79 F. Supp. 2d 809, 811 (E.D. Mich 2000) (quoting
Pilates, Inc. v. Pilates Institute, Inc., 891 F.Supp. 175, 183 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)).
Overall, “[t]he Court has broad discretion under this statute in transferring a case to
a different venue on the basis of inconvenience.” Eaton v. Meathe, No. 1:11-CV-
Case 1:26-cv-00559-MV ECF No. 96, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 7 of 12

8
178, 2011 WL 1898238, at *2 (W.D. Mich. May 18, 2011) (citing Phelps v.
McClellan, 30 F.3d 658, 663 (6th Cir. 1994)).
In Stenberg’s amended complaint, he brings fourteen claims against twelve
individual defendants arising largely out of his time at LCF, as follows:
 	Count I: Negligence – Groff and Ouellette (LCF)
 	Count II: Deliberate Indifference – Groff, Ouellette, McIntyre,
Blessman, and Wellpath (LCF)
 	Count III: Deliberate Indifference – Ouellette and Bomber (LCF)
 	Count IV: Deliberate Indifference – Coleman, Wellpath, Howard,
and Blessman (LCF)
 	Count V: Deliberate Indifference – Groff, John Doe, and Jane Doe
(LCF)
 	Count VI: Deliberate Indifference – Blessman (LCF)
 	Count VII: Deliberate Indifference – Blessman (LCF)
 	Count VIII: Deliberate Indifference – Coleman (LCF)
 	Count IX: Deliberate Indifference – Groff and Ouellette (LCF)
 	Count X: Deliberate Indifference – Coleman and Wellpath (LCF)
 	Count XI: Deliberate Indifference – Massey and Blessman (TCF)
 	Count XII: Challenges the constitutionality of the PLRA (no
specified defendant)
 	Count XIII: Deliberate Indifference – Massey (TCF)
 	Count XIV: Deliberate Indifference – Blessman (TCF)
(ECF No. 14, PageID.1162-1170).
Stenberg’s first ten claims arise out of his time at LCF and relate to the
Case 1:26-cv-00559-MV ECF No. 96, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 8 of 12

9
medical care he received there dating back to 2021. Stenberg was not transferred
to TCF until March 8, 2024, meaning that over three years of the medical care
giving rise to his complaint occurred at LCF. (ECF No. 14-1, PageID.1253).
Massey is the only defendant who works at TCF, and only three of the fourteen
claims arise out of Stenberg’s time at TCF, one of which is against Blessman, who
works at the Central Office in the Western District and was involved only in
medication approval. (ECF No. 14, PageID.1168-1170).
This case could have been brought in the Western District of Michigan
originally under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial portion of the events
giving rise to the claim occurred while Stenberg was incarcerated at LCF in the
Western District. Also, all but three of Stenberg’s claims arose in the Western
District, where most of the defendants are located. Transfer would therefore make
it more convenient for most of the parties and witnesses, and the majority of
relevant documents and other evidence will be in the Western District. The locus
of the operative facts is at LCF, where the conduct giving rise to most of
Stenberg’s claims over the span of three years occurred.
The Western District is just as capable as this Court of handling claims by
prisoners under the Eighth Amendment, and overall if the case makes it to trial, a
trial held in the Western District will be more efficient for all involved. Finally,
although Stenberg chose to file his case in the Eastern District and a plaintiff’s
Case 1:26-cv-00559-MV ECF No. 96, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 9 of 12

10
choice of forum is usually entitled to deference, Stenberg’s choice should be
afforded less deference. Notably, Stenberg himself has recently been returned to
LCF. See ECF No. 95. And in Stenberg’s JPay messages, attached to MDOC
Defendants’ reply, he stated that he requested to be transferred to Lapeer, and was
hoping for a transfer “so [he could] file [his case] in the Eastern District as the
Western District…just throws out everything. You have much more of a fight in
the W.D.” (ECF No. 55-1, PageID.1759); see Perrywatson v. United Airlines,
Inc., No. 1:09 CV 1957, 2010 WL 359696, at *2 (N.D.Ohio Jan. 29, 2010) (“While
a plaintiff’s choice of forum is generally entitled to substantial weight, that choice
is given less consideration if the operative events giving rise to the lawsuit took
place in a forum other than that chosen by the plaintiff.”).
Overall, a consideration of the factors weigh in favor of the case being
transferred and heard in the Western District.
C. 	Remaining Motions (ECF Nos. 33, 57)
As venue is more convenient in the Western District of Michigan, the Court
need not comment on the merits of the remaining motions to dismiss filed by
Coleman, Massey, and Wellpath. See, e.g., Tieman v. Victaulic Co., No. 06-CV-
1036, 2007 WL 397054, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2007) (granting defendant’s
motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a) without commenting on the pending motion to dismiss or the propriety of
Case 1:26-cv-00559-MV ECF No. 96, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 10 of
12

11
venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391). Defendants may refile their motions in the
Western District after the case is transferred if they so choose.
V. 	Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that
Blessman, McIntyre, Morrison, and Washington’s motion (ECF No. 39) be
GRANTED IN PART and that the case be TRANSFERRED to the Western
District of Michigan. The remaining motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 33, 57) should
be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with the opportunity to refile in the Western
District, if defendants so choose.
Dated: January 15, 2026 	s/Kimberly G. Altman
Detroit, Michigan 	KIMBERLY G. ALTMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and
Recommendation. Any objections must be filed within 14 days of service, as
provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.1(d).
Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of
appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 144 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991). Filing objections that raise some
issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a
party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health &
Case 1:26-cv-00559-MV ECF No. 96, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 11 of
12

12
Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of
Teachers, Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Under Local Rule
72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.
Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” “Objection No. 2,”
etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and
Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an
objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the
objections in length and complexity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR
72.1(d). The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections,
in the same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to
Objection No. 2,” etc. If the court determines that any objections are without
merit, it may rule without awaiting the response.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on January 15, 2026.
s/Dru Jennings
DRU JENNINGS
Case Manager
Case 1:26-cv-00559-MV ECF No. 96, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 12 of
12