Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
RUFFIN v. WINNEBAGO COUNTY JAIL
August 8, 2005.
JOHHNY M. RUFFIN, JR., Plaintiff,
WINNEBAGO COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: CLIFFORD PROUD, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff's pro se motion for change of
venue from the Southern District of Illinois to the Central
District of Illinois. (Doc. 20). Plaintiff argues that since
the majority of defendants work for the Illinois Department of
Corrections, which is headquartered in Springfield, Illinois, in
the Central District of Illinois, venue would be more convenient
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1391:
(b) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not
founded solely on diversity of citizenship may,
except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only
in (1) a judicial district where any defendant
resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,
(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) a
judicial district in which any defendant may be
found, if there is no district in which the action
may otherwise be brought.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
A review of the record reveals that vast majority of the events
at issue in the remaining counts in this case occurred at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center and Menard Correctional Center,
both of which are in the Southern District of Illinois. Policy
issues made by the Illinois Department of Corrections may have been made in Springfield
Illinois but, according to the pleadings, they were carried out
in the Southern District of Illinois. In addition, it appears
that most, but not all defendants reside in the Southern District
of Illinois.*fn1 At this juncture, the Court is certain that
venue is appropriate in the Southern District of Illinois under
Section 1391(b)(2). Venua also appears appropriate in the
Southern District of Illinois under Section 1391(b)(1), although
the Central District of Illinois may also be appropriate if all
defendants reside in Illinois and any one of them resides in the
Central District. There is no cause to believe Section 1391(b)(3)
For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, a change of
venue may be granted to any district where the case might have
been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). However, in this situation
it appears to this Court that a transfer to the Central District
of Illinois would be a far greater inconvenience to the parties
and witnesses, even if a few of the policy-making defendants
reside in the Central District, which is unclear.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for change of
venue (Doc. 20) is DENIED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For