DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ║ SIRRLOVE WILLIAMS, ║ ║ Plaintiff, ║ 1:24-cv-00037-WAL-EAH v. ║ ║ DEPUTY PETERSON AND ║ CHIEF SHERIFF HIWOR BROWN, ║ ║ Defendants. ║ ________________________________________________ ║ TO: Sirrlove Williams, Pro Se

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the lodging of a Supplemental Complaint, Dkt. No. 5, and a Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dkt. No. 6, on December 30, 2024 by Plaintiff Sirrlove Williams, a prisoner appearing pro se. These documents were tendered in response to an Order the Court issued on November 27, 2024 which, inter alia, directed Williams to resubmit his handwritten complaint on the Court’s complaint form for prisoners filing a civil action under

, and to either pay the $402.00 filing fee or execute the application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee (i.e., to proceed in forma pauperis). Dkt. No. 2. Williams tendered the requested documents in response to the Court Order. For the reasons that follow, the Court will order this case transferred to the District of CBoAloCrKaGdRo.O UND 1 On November 26, 2024, Williams’s initial complaint was “lodged” against Defendants “Deputy Peterson and Chief Sherriff Hiwor brown.” Dkt. No. 1. In his two-page, handwritten Williams v. Peterson 1:24-cv-00037-WAL-EAH Order Transferring Case Page 2

complaint, entitled “Civil Rights Violation,” Williams appeared to allege that, on “November 16,” Deputy Peterson accused him of a medication infraction that caused him to lose one hour of outside time that day. His breakfast was withheld for four hours and it was ice cold when he received it. The Sheriff, “hiwor brown” did not monitor and discipline the officers at the Arapahoe County Jail where Williams is a pretrial detainee. Williams asserts that the officerIsd .want to provoke and physically attack him. Two years ago, he got some deputies fired. Because the Court found this complaint “hard to follow,” it sent Williams a copy of the District Court of the Virgin Islands’ prisoner civil rights complaint form so that he could better organize his claims, and the Court’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application, and ordered him to refile his complaint and file the motion to proceed IFP (or pay the filing fee) by January 24, 2025 or face possible dismissal of his case. Dkt. No. 2. The Court also noted that “nothing in the Complaint connects Williams, the Defendants, or the events he describes to the IUd.S. Virgin Islands that would permit this Court to exercise jurisdiction over the complaint.” . Williams refiled his complaint on the Court’s civil rights complaint form. Dkt. No. 5. He indicated his address as a post office box in Centennial, Colorado, and that the address of the two Defendants, Deputy Peterson and Hiwor Brown, both employed by the Arapahoe,

from a prisoner, it will “lodge” the complaint until the motion to proceed IFP has been granted. OnSecee Bthraotw onc vc.u Srasg, tehe docket will be updated to show rtehva’dt tehne b caonmc polna ointht eisr “gfriloeudn.”d Isf Williams v. Peterson 1:24-cv-00037-WAL-EAH Order Transferring Case Page 3

Colorado Sheriff’s Department, was also in Centennial, Colorado. Williams alleged that his claims arose on November 16, 2024 and, in response to the prompt on the complaint form asking which “constitutional rights you believe have been violated,” he answered I“dNeglegence [sic], Cruel Unusual Punishment; Intention Infliction of Emotion Distr; Torture.” . at 2. In response to the question asking him to provide the essential facts of his case, he stated that, on November 16, 2024 at 6:45 a.m., Defendant Peterson was escorting the nurse; Williams took his medication; the officer asked toI dsee his mouth again and told him he lost his “time out” and refused to feed him breakfIads.t. . at 3. Williams was served his breakfast a few hours later but it was cold and inedible. He adds that Defendant Hiwor Brown failed to train, sIudp.ervise, and discipline the officers under his charge and that “this” is a continuing practice. As to damages, he asserted that he has “a fear of cops and officer[.] This was intentional infliction of emotional distress, mental damage.” He seeks I$d3.00,000 in damages, a “restraining order,” and to “change venue to Bould[er] Colorado.” at 4. He attached a one-page handwritten affidavit in which he averred that after officers started playing in his food with their hands, he became very sick and could not move for three days. Dkt. No. 5-1. Williams also filed an application to proceed IFP on the form provided by the Court. Dkt. No. 6. He declared under penalty of perjury that he had no income, no money in any bank accounts, no proIpderty of value, and no regular monthly expenses, dependents, or financial obligations. . Below the Declaration, the form required a “Certification of

Prisoner’s Institutional Account Balance” to be filled out. The form states in bold, underlined Williams v. Peterson 1:24-cv-00037-WAL-EAH Order Transferring Case Page 4

a certified copy of your institutional account statement . . . ” No prison official signed the Certification and no institutional accounDtI sStCaUteSmSIeOnNt w as attached. A. Magistrate Judge’s Authority to Address Venue Matters Before determining how to proceed in this case, the Court will first consider its authority to address venue matters. Under

(b)(1), “a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court” except certain enumerated motions not at issue here, and may “reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the smeeaNgieswtrtaotne vju. Adgkeer’ss order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

(b)(1)(A); , No. 23- cv-1469,

, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2024) (“the decision to transfer a case rests

within the jurisdiction and sound discretion of a United States Magistrate Judge under

(b)(1)(A), subject to appeal to the district court for an abuse of that discretion”). Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72.1, entitled “Magistrate Judges—Authority in Pretrial Matters,” provides that “[t]he Magistrate Judges are hereby designated to hear and determine in all civil actions any pretrial matter permitted by

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.” LRCi 72.1. Thus, the Local Rule provides the designation required in § 636(b)(1)(A) for this Court to address this pretrial matter. Numerous courts have ruled that motions to transfer areS neoet, ed.igs.p, Boesietmivaec m, Iontci.o vn. sG alansds

Acamne briec aad, LjuLdCicated by magistrate judges under § 636(b)(1)(A). Williams v. Peterson 1:24-cv-00037-WAL-EAH Order Transferring Case Page 5 Newton Beemac

,

, at *2 (citing cases). In , the Magistrate Judge sua sponte raised the issue of an apparseenet a llascok N oefw vteonnue and transferred the case to another District,

, at *1-2; ,

, at *1. Accordingly, the Court concludBe.s T trhaant sitf emrariyn sgu Va esnpounet e address the matter of transferring venue.

Williams’s initial pro se complaint was almost entirely devoid of facts. However, the few facts he did plead caused the Court to note in its November 27, 2024 Order that “nothing in the Complaint connects Williams, the Defendants, or the events he describes to the U.S. Virgin Islands that would permit this Court to exercise jurisdiction over the complaint.” Dkt. No. 2. In his Supplemental Complaint, Williams confirmed the Court’s supposition that neither he, the Defendants, nor the events he described occurred in the U.S. Virgin Islands: he is incarcerated at the Arapahoe County Jail in Colorado, the Defendants are employed by the Arapahoe County, Colorado Sheriff’s Department and apparently work at the Arapahoe Jail (supporting the inference that they reside in the District of Colorado), and the events that 2 formed the basis of Williams’s claims under federal and state law occurred in Colorado as well. It thus appears that this Court lacks venue over the claims and the parties. Claims made pursuant to § 1983 have no sUprercuiatila v ve.n Huaer rpirsobvuirsgi oCnn;t ya.s P ao lricees’us lDt,e tph’te general venue provisions of

apply. ,

2 Williams v. Peterson 1:24-cv-00037-WAL-EAH Order Transferring Case Page 6

(3d Cir. 1996). Section 1391 provides that a civil action (except for diversity jurisdiction actions) may be brought in: “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . ; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.”

(b). Given that the Defendants appear to reside in the District of Colorado and the events giving rise to this action occurred within that District, the venue of this action is properly laid in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. When it appears that a case is being pursued in the wrong venue, there are two potential remedies available to a court. First, it may dismiss the action for lack of venue pursuant to

and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). This Court does not have jurisdiction to issue such an Order; the most it could do if it chose that disposition would be to issue a 3 Report & Recommendation to the District Judge recommending dismissal. As a second option, the Court may, in the interests of justice, provide another form of relief which ensures that venue is proper without prejudicing the rights of the plaintiff. Under

:

3 The Third Circuit has also held that “[d]Fisitorriactn ci ovu. Crthsr gyselneer rCaollryp should not dismiss in forma pauperis complaints for improper venue” without considering whether the interests of Williams v. Peterson 1:24-cv-00037-WAL-EAH Order Transferring Case Page 7

or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district T. .h . ein d wishtircicht i tc ocouurtld o hf aav ed ibseterinc tb rinou wghhtich is filed a case laying venue in the wrong . . . district shall dismiss, .

4

(a) (emphasis added). In this case, since venue over this matter lies in the United Sptraot eses District Court for the District of Colorado, in order to protect the plaintiff's rights as a litigant, the Court will order this case transferred to that court for further proceedings. Such a transfer order avoids anSye per Beujurdniectet vto. N thewe p Yloarinkt Cifef ntth. aRt. mCoight flow from a dismissal of this action on venue grounds. .,

(1965). Finally, the Court will decline to rule on the pending motion for in forma pauperis, which will be left to the sound discretioCnO oNf CthLeU tSrIaOnNsf eree court. ORDERED Ac cordingly, for the TfoRrAegNoSinFgE RreRaEsDons, it is hereby : 1. This case will be to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado for all further proceedings. 2. The Clerk of Court shall ensure the procedure is completed properly.

4 Interestingly, Williams appears to have had some knowledge that the venue of his action should properly have been in the District of Colorado when he wrote in the “damages” section of his Supplemental Complaint that he sought a chSaene,g ee. go.f, vWeniluliae mtos Bvo. uFlidrmera, nColorado. Dkt. No. 5 at 4. A quick check of District of Colorado Wcaislleias mosn vW. Ceisttyl a&w C rnetvy.e oafl sD neunmveerrous actions brought by Williams from 2007 through 2017. Williams v. Andre , No. 17- cv-00598,

(D. Colo. NovW. 8il, l2ia0m1s7 )v;. Denver Addualt Probation , 10- Williams v. Peterson 1:24-cv-00037-WAL-EAH Order Transferring Case Page 8

3. The Clerk’s Office shall send a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested. ENTER:

Dated: January 8, 2025 /s/ Emile A. Henderson III_____ EMILE A. HENDERSON III U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE