Facts
- Plaintiff Agness McCurry filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various judges and attorneys, asserting multiple claims related to state court proceedings where she was charged with criminal contempt. [lines="11-12"].
- McCurry alleges a conspiracy involving several judges and attorneys to deprive her of due process in the underlying criminal case. [lines="31-34"].
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of McCurry's complaint, citing judicial immunity for the judges involved and a failure to state a claim for the attorney defendants. [lines="66-68"].
- McCurry objected to the Report and Recommendation (R&R), claiming the magistrate judge wrongfully applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act despite her not being incarcerated. [lines="96-97"].
- She also sought recusal of the presiding judge due to alleged conflicts of interest stemming from her lawsuits against other judges. [lines="57-59"].
Issues
- Whether the judicial officers are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from McCurry’s claims for damages. [lines="245"].
- Whether the magistrate judge erred in applying the Prison Litigation Reform Act to a non-incarcerated plaintiff. [lines="203"].
- Whether McCurry's motion for recusal was justified under 28 U.S.C. § 455 due to perceived bias and conflict of interest. [lines="108-109"].
Holdings
- The court upheld that the judges have absolute judicial immunity in relation to claims arising from their judicial actions, barring McCurry's claims for damages. [lines="245"].
- The court overruled McCurry's objection regarding the application of the PLRA, affirming that the magistrate properly screened her complaint under § 1915(e) as she proceeded in forma pauperis. [lines="218"].
- The court denied McCurry's motion for recusal, finding no reasonable basis for questioning the impartiality of the judges involved. [lines="197"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 Case 2:24-cv-00012 Document 21 Filed 06/21/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 143
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
DANIEL MACKEY,
Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-00012 LT. TIMOTHY TIBBS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
On June 4, 2024, this court entered an Order expressing its concerns about whether this district is the most appropriate venue for this case. See [ECF No. 19, at 8–9]. Because it is proper to provide the parties with notice and an opportunity to be heard before a sua sponte transfer of venue, see Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 934 (D.C. Cir. 1974), I directed the parties to file briefs within 14 days from the entry of my order if such party opposes a sua sponte transfer of venue to the Northern District of West Virginia. [ECF No. 19, at 9]. No party objects to the transfer of venue. See [ECF No. 20].
The federal venue statute allows a district court to “transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought” for “the convenience of parties and witnesses.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). This statute gives courts authority to transfer an action sua sponte upon consideration of certain factors, which include “the weight accorded to plaintiff[’s] choice of venue; witness convenience and access;
Case 2:24-cv-00012 Document 21 Filed 06/21/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 144 convenience of the parties; and the interest of justice.” Luna v. Tug Hill Operating, LLC, No. 5:23-CV-361, 2024 WL 1219722, at *3 (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 20, 2024) (internal markings omitted) (citing Trs. of the Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat’l Pension Fund v. Plumbing Servs., 701 F.3d 436, 444 (4th Cir. 2015)).
With no objection from the parties, the court FINDS that in the interest of justice, the Northern District of West Virginia is a more appropriate venue for this case. The events forming the basis of the allegations in this case all occurred at North Central Regional Jail, which is located in Greenwood, Doddridge County, in the Northern District of West Virginia. Plaintiff and remaining Defendants also reside in the Northern District. Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and in the interest of justice, this matter is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, Clarksburg Division, for further consideration. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit Plaintiff’s file to the Clerk of Courts at the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
ENTER: June 21, 2024 2