White v. Griffin et al

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: IT IS RECOMMENDED that the captioned matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Objections to R&R due by 7/10/2026. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North on 6/26/2026. (rkr) (NEF Section P)District Court Laed26 giu 2026

Testo completo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CHRISTOPHER WHITE, JR. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS

NO. 26-1342
HILTON GRIFFIN, ET AL.

SECTION AP@ (5)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, Christopher White, Jr., is an inmate currently confined at the Franklin Parish
Detention Center in Winnsboro, Louisiana. He has submitted a complaint pursuant to Title
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
1
He alleges that defendants, Warden Hilton Griffin, Dramian Crockett
(DOC Transition Specialist), Payton Sparks (Director of the Step Program) and the
Department of Corrections have wrongfully denied him access to the Step Program based on
a past charge. He requests monetary compensation. (Rec. Doc. 1, Complaint).
Because Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not contain a specific venue provision, venue is
determined under the general venue provision found at Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). See Jones
v. Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453 (N.D. Ga. 1972), aff'd, 480 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1973). Section 1391(b)
provides that 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 (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

1
He did not submit a motion to proceed as a pauper with his complaint. He submitted a letter
explaining his difficulty obtaining a copy of his inmate account. Rec. Doc. 1-2. The Clerk’s Office has not
pursued the deficiency process, opting instead to defer pauper deficiencies and collection to the Western
District of Louisiana pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Case 2:26-cv-01342-DJP Document 2 Filed 06/26/26 Page 1 of 3

2
is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

At all relevant times, plaintiff was incarcerated at the Franklin Parish Detention Center in
Winnsboro, Louisiana. He alleges that all defendants who are denying him the ability to
participate in the Step Program may be found in Winnsboro, Louisiana in Franklin Parish,
which is located within the geographical boundaries of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana. 28 U.S.C. § 98(c). Accordingly, venue is not proper in
the Eastern District of Louisiana.
If venue does not lie within a judicial district, the Court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the
interest of justice, transfer” the case to the proper district. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see
Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1067 (5th Cir. 1998); Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S.
463, 465 (1962). Here, the Court finds that transfer of the proceedings to the appropriate
district, rather than dismissal, would promote efficient and fair adjudication and serve the
interests of justice.
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the captioned matter be transferred to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within fourteen (14)
days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error,
from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such
Case 2:26-cv-01342-DJP Document 2 Filed 06/26/26 Page 2 of 3

3
consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Services Automobile
Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
2

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _______ day of ________________________, 2026.

MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2
Douglass referenced the previously applicable ten-day period for the filing of objections. Effective
December 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) was amended to extend that period to fourteen days.
June
26th
Case 2:26-cv-01342-DJP Document 2 Filed 06/26/26 Page 3 of 3

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.