OSCAR

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

M.D. Fla. | 2022-05-31

No. 5-1

District Court, M.D. Florida (2022)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court held that transfer of the civil action to the Middle District of Florida is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because the plaintiff is incarcerated there, and the court cannot transfer the action to state court.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff, incarcerated in Florida, sued in the Western District of Oklahoma alleging constitutional and civil rights violations and fraud. The Magist…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

28 U.S.C. § 1404(A) (Transfer Of Venue) 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A) Violation Of Constitutional Rights Transfer Of Venue

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A) (Transfer Of Venue) cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Upon its de novo review, the Court concludes that transfer of this case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Court need not repeat Judge Erwin’s venue analysis (which is unobjected to by Plaintiff), but does note, in direct response to Plaintiff’s Objection, that it cannot transfer the action to Florida state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (authorizing transfer of

“civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought”); Pope v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co., 345 U.S. 379, 384 (1953) (“Section 1404(a), by its very terms, speaks to federal courts . . . [and] its limited purpose is to authorize, under certain circumstances, the transfer of a civil action from one federal forum to another federal forum in which the action ‘might have been brought.’”) (emphasis added).

The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 6] in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. The Clerk of the Court is directed to TRANSFER this matter to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida for all further proceedings. The Court leaves Plaintiff’s pending motions [Doc. Nos. 2, 7, 8, 10, and 14] and amended complaint [Doc. No. 9]2 to the transferee court to decide.

W. DISHMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

amended complaint does not impact the recommendation or appropriateness of transfer in this case.

Footnotes

1 Although Plaintiff’s caption lists several other plaintiffs, there are no allegations related to any of these plaintiffs, so the Court will address Plaintiff’s claims. See Compl. [Doc. No. 1] at 4, 6–8 (“Statement of Claim”); see also Notice, Ex. 1 [Doc. No. 5-1] (listing “people if they wanna be part of my claims”). filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation, which does not challenge Judge Erwin’s venue analysis but seeks to have the Court transfer venue to Florida state court, specifically the “Miami-Dade County Courthouse.” [Doc. No. 13 at 1].

2 The docket reflects that an amended complaint was filed on May 5, 2022 [Doc. No. 9], a week after the Report and Recommendation. However, the Objection to the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 13], filed after the amended complaint, makes clear that Plaintiff does not dispute Judge Erwin’s venue analysis, even after the filing of the amended complaint. Regardless, the reasons for the change of venue in the Report and Recommendation still exist with the amended complaint. Therefore, the filing of the IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of May 2022.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Pope v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 345 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1953)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw