TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Walker v. Weaver

Thomas WALKER v. Honorable Lloyd F. WEAVER, Judge, Allegheny County Courts, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Arthur T. Prasse, Commissioner of Correction, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and James F. Maroney, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Walker v. Weaver, 266 F. Supp. 415 (M.D. Penn. 1967)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Federal District Courts
Decided
April 12, 1967
Docket
No. 9945
Judges
Follmer
Citations
266 F. Supp. 4151967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8397

Opinion of the Court — Follmer

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

MEMORANDUM FOLLMER, District Judge.

Thomas Walker, a prisoner at the State Correctional Institution, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, has submitted a request to commence an action under the Civil Rights Act ( 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1983 , 1985(3)), in forma pauperis, against the ,above named defendants. He claims that his motion for new trial has been pending for fourteen and one-half months and that he has been held in custody for that time without being sentenced. He further claims he is being punished by prison officials although he has not violated any rules or regulations.

In the first place, all of the named defendants are residents in the Western District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) provides:

“A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may be brought only in the judicial district where all defendants reside, except as otherwise provided by law.”

Since 28 U.S.C. § 1343 , the statute providing for jurisdiction of cases under the Civil Rights Act, has no special venue provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) applies to this case. 1 Moore’s Federal Practice fí 0.144(17), p. 1680 (1964 ed.). This action does not rest on diversity of citizenship and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b), the plaintiff has no choice of venue, but must bring the action in the district where the defendants reside. 1 Moore’s Federal Practice 0.142(4), p. 1479 (1964 ed.). Since all the defendants reside in the Western District of Pennsylvania, that is where the plaintiff must bring the action.

Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1975: 11976: 11977: 119752026peak 1975 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Coleman v. Crisp444 F. Supp. 31 (W.D. Okla. 1977)
  2. Sinwell, William v. Governor Milton Shapp, Governor of Pennsylvania536 F.2d 15 (3d Cir. 1976)
  3. Harley v. Oliver400 F. Supp. 105 (W.D. Ark. 1975)

Most recent

  1. Coleman v. Crisp444 F. Supp. 31 (W.D. Okla. 1977)
  2. Sinwell, William v. Governor Milton Shapp, Governor of Pennsylvania536 F.2d 15 (3d Cir. 1976)
  3. Harley v. Oliver400 F. Supp. 105 (W.D. Ark. 1975)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list