Burnett #200640 v. Schultz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Michael Angelo Burnett, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Heidi E. Washington, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
Case No. 25-13155
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
OPINION AND ORDER PARTIALLY DISMISSING COMPLAINT
AND TRANSFERRING THE REMAINDER OF THE CASE TO
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Michael Burnett’s pro
se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Burnett
is an inmate confined at the Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe,
Michigan who filed a lawsuit naming himself and his mother, Vera Gene
Burnett, as Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 1.) Ms. Burnett did not submit an
application to proceed in forma pauperis, nor has she signed the
complaint.
Case 2:25-cv-00267-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 7

2
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff Vera Gene Burnett is
dismissed from the complaint. The Court will transfer the remainder of
the complaint, which involves Mr. Burnett’s allegations, to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Michigan for further
proceedings.
I. 	Dismissal of Plaintiff Verna Gene Burnett
The Court dismisses Ms. Burnett from the complaint.
First, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 states that “[e]very
pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one
attorney of record in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the
party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).
A litigant who wishes to file a pro se lawsuit must personally sign
the complaint to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. See Bradley v. Mason,
833 F. Supp. 2d 763, 768 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1654). Here,
Ms. Burnett has not signed the complaint. (See ECF No. 1, PageID.32.)
Second, Mr. Burnett as a pro se litigant cannot act as a legal
representative for his mother—or anyone except himself—in this or any
action. Pro se litigants cannot sign a pleading on behalf of other persons
in a legal proceeding in federal court. Zanecki v. Health All. Plan of
Case 2:25-cv-00267-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 7

3
Detroit, 576 F. App’x 594, 595 (6th Cir. 2014) (“Because, by definition, pro
se means to appear on one’s own behalf, a person may not appear pro se
on another person’s behalf in the other’s cause of action.” (quoting
Cavanaugh ex rel. Cavanaugh v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist., 409 F.3d 753,
755 (6th Cir. 2005))); see also Bradley, 833 F. Supp. 2d at 768 (holding
that state inmates proceeding pro se could not represent other inmates
in suit against jail officials, even if the other inmates consented to their
representation).
Third, Ms. Burnett has not paid the filing fee nor has she submitted
an application to proceed in forma pauperis. All individuals, both
prisoners and non-prisoners, who seek to proceed in federal court without
paying the filing fee must file an application to do so. Failure to properly
file the application will result in a denial to proceed in forma pauperis.
See Floyd v. U.S. Postal Service, 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997).
Because Ms. Burnett has neither paid the filing fee nor filed any
documents in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis, her
portion of the complaint and the Defendants who are alleged to have
violated Ms. Burnett’s constitutional rights are dismissed from the
complaint.
Case 2:25-cv-00267-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 7

4
II. Venue for the remaining allegations in the complaint
The remainder of the complaint involves Mr. Burnett’s allegations.
The complaint is transferred to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Michigan because venue is not proper in this district.
All of the constitutional violations alleged in the remainder of the
complaint took place at the Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe,
Michigan, which is located in the Western District of Michigan. (See ECF
No. 1, PageID.5–18 (describing constitutional violations at Chippewa
Correctional Facility).) The only allegations in the complaint that took
place in the Eastern District of Michigan pertain to Plaintiff Vera Gene
Burnett, who is dismissed from the case. (Id. at PageID.18 (alleging that
constitutional violations occurred in the Macomb Correctional Facility).)
Additionally, all remaining Defendants are located in the Western
District of Michigan. All but one Defendant are employees at the
Chippewa Correctional Facility. The only Defendant who does not work
at the Chippewa Correctional Facility is Defendant Heidi Washington,
the Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections, who works in
Lansing, Michigan. Lansing is also located in the Western District of
Michigan.
Case 2:25-cv-00267-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 7

5
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in “(1) a judicial
district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of
the State in which the district is located,” or “(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).1
A district court may transfer a case upon its own review due to
improper venue. See Carver v. Knox Cnty., 887 F.2d 1287, 1291 (6th Cir.
1989); 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). When deciding whether to change the venue
of a lawsuit, the district court must consider the convenience of parties
and witnesses, and if the transfer is in the interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a) (“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice, 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.”); Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist.
Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 62 (2013).
1 If neither § 1391(b)(1) or (2) applies, § 1391(b)(3) provides that venue is proper
in “any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal
jurisdiction with respect to such action.”
Case 2:25-cv-00267-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 5 of 7

6
The Court concludes that the convenience of the parties and
witnesses, and the interests of justice, weigh heavily in favor of
transferring the remainder of the case to the Western District of
Michigan. Mr. Burnett is currently incarcerated at the Chippewa
Correctional Facility. The records from this prison would be more easily
transported to the court in the Western District and the court’s subpoena
power could be exercised more effectively in that district. Mr. Burnett’s
claims involve events that allegedly took place in the Western District of
Michigan and are not connected to the Eastern District of Michigan. The
potential expenses and inconvenience to the parties and the witnesses of
trying the case in the Eastern District of Michigan greatly outweigh Mr.
Burnett’s initial election of the present forum. See, e.g., Sullivan v.
Tribley, 602 F. Supp. 2d 795, 800–01 (E.D. Mich. 2009). Accordingly, it is
proper to transfer this case to the Western District of Michigan.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff Vera Gene Burnett is
DISMISSED from the complaint and her claims are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to
Case 2:25-cv-00267-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 6 of 7

7
transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 20, 2025 	s/Judith E. Levy
Ann Arbor, Michigan 	JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
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 November 20, 2025.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
Case 2:25-cv-00267-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 7 of 7