United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Y D. CRENSHAW, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court has before it a pro se prisoner Complaint of
Danny Horn (Doc. No. 1) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an
Application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2).
Plaintiff is an inmate at the Trousdale Turner Correctional
Center in Hartsville, Tennessee. It appears from his
Application that the Plaintiff lacks sufficient financial
resources from which to pay the fee required to file the
Complaint. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(4), the Clerk will file the Complaint in forma
pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Plaintiff is hereby ASSESSED the civil
filing fee of $350.00. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1)(A) and (B), the custodian of the Plaintiff's
inmate trust account at the institution where he now resides
is directed to submit to the Clerk of Court, as an initial
partial payment, whichever is greater of:
twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly deposits to the
Plaintiff's inmate trust account;
twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly balance in the
Plaintiff's inmate trust account for the prior six (6)
the custodian shall submit twenty percent (20%) of the
Plaintiff's preceding monthly income (or income credited
to the Plaintiff's trust account for the preceding
month), but only when such monthly income exceeds ten dollars
($10.00), until the full filing fee of three hundred fifty
dollars ($350.00) as authorized under 28 U.S.C. §
1914(a) has been paid to the Clerk of Court. 28 U.S.C. §
to the Complaint and its attachments, the Plaintiff is
bringing this action against the State of Tennessee; Mike
Reece, Sheriff of Johnson County, Tennessee; Tony Clark,
District Attorney General for Johnson County; the Johnson
County Sheriff's Department and two members of that
agency (Lisa Stout and Shawn Brown); three residents of
Bristol, Tennessee (Heather Shumate, her father Richard and
Margaret Lyon); and Sandra Billings, Heather Shumate's
aunt. (Doc. No. 1 at pgs. 5 and 9).
Plaintiff is seeking “post-conviction relief and habeas
corpus” (Id. at pg. 8) for state cases that
are only identified by the case numbers “RE:
E2015-00715-CCA” and “R3-CD-13 CR 181".
(Id. at pg. 7). He claims ineffective assistance of
counsel (Id. at pg. 5) and asks “For the State
to provide evidence for Heather Shumate to tell who Larry is.
And the court used my past and I don't get a fair trial,
and to give me Attorney to help me with my case.”
(Id. at pg. 6).
for the instant case is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
That provision requires that this action 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 the defendants are subject to
personal jurisdiction at the time that the action is
commenced, if there is no district in which the action may
otherwise be brought.
defendants reside in either Johnson or Sullivan
counties. These counties lie within the Northeastern
Division of the Eastern District of Tennessee. See
28 U.S.C. § 123(a)(2). Plaintiff makes no allegations of
anything that occurred in this district. Indeed, the
Complaint suggest that the cases for which he is seeking
“post-conviction relief and habeas corpus” arose
in Johnson and Sullivan counties. Venue for this action,
therefore, is not proper in this judicial district.
the Court would consider transferring the case to the proper
district to cure a defect in venue. However, a prisoner does
not state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a
ruling on his claim would necessarily render his continuing
confinement invalid, until and unless the reason for his
continued confinement has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal, or has been called into question by a federal
court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v.
Humphrey, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994).
in the Complaint does the Plaintiff assert that he has
already successfully tested the validity of his confinement
in either a state or federal court. Therefore, the
Plaintiff's claims are not yet cognizable in a §
improper venue, a district court shall dismiss the
case, except in those instances when the interest of justice
would be better served by a transfer. 28 U.S.C. §
1406(a). The decision to cure a defect in venue with either
dismissal or a transfer is a matter left solely within the
sound discretion of the district court. First of Michigan
Corp. v. Bramlet, 141 F.3d 260, 262 (6th Cir.
1998). Given the apparent ...