You're viewing Docket Item 2 from the case CHRISTIAN v. PA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:13-cv-01371-LPL Document 2 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA







JULIO CHRISTIAN,




Plaintiff,

v.


PA BOARD OF PROBATION AND
PAROLE,



Defendant,





)
) Civil Action No. 13 – 1371
)

)
)
Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
)
)
)

)

)



MEMORANDUM ORDER

AND NOW, this 20th day of September, 2013, upon consideration of the “Statement of

Claim” (ECF No. 1) filed by Plaintiff Julio Christian (“Plaintiff”), and it appearing that the

action should have been brought before the United States District Court for the Middle District

of Pennsylvania, see 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“For convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the

interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division

where it might have been brought.”); see also Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879

(3d Cir. 1995) (stating factors to consider when deciding whether to transfer case), because

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at SCI-Rockview, located within the Middle District of

Pennsylvania, is alleging claims against the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, located

in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, within the Middle District of Pennsylvania, see Jumara, 55 F.3d at

879 (stating that location of parties is a factor) for conduct that presumably arose in the Middle

District of Pennsylvania, see id. (stating that where claim arose is a factor), because discovery, if

any, may involve witnesses and documents located within that district, see id. (stating that



1

Case 2:13-cv-01371-LPL Document 2 Filed 09/20/13 Page 2 of 2

location of witnesses and discoverable evidence is a factor), and because that district likely has a

strong interest in deciding this controversy, see id. (stating that local interest in deciding case is a

factor), and the Court finding that practical and economic considerations of conducting discovery

and trial in a location near the parties and witnesses weigh in favor of transfer, see id. (stating

that public and practical considerations are factors); see also Hill v. Guidant Corp., 76 F. Supp.

566, 570-71 (M.D. Pa. 1999) (stating that in considering transfer of case, convenience of non-

party witnesses residing more than 100 miles from the court weigh heavily), and it would be in

the interests of justice and judicial economy to transfer this case because it does not appear that

any of the alleged events occurred within this district, it is hereby ORDERED that;

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer the above-captioned case to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a); Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879.



2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and TRANSFER forthwith.

/s/ Lisa P. Lenihan

Lisa P. Lenihan
Chief United States Magistrate Judge



cc: Julio Christian
AY9428
S.C.I. Rockview
Box A
Bellefonte, PA 16823-0820






2