Karbowski v. Odili — Court concluded venue was improper and said the case should be transferred

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

James Karbowski, an inmate at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s LeBlanc Unit, filed a pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Christine L. Stetson for findings, conclusions, and recommendations concerning its disposition.

Karbowski alleged that Dr. Parupodi Sreeram “botched” a colonoscopy at UTMB Hospital in Galveston, Texas. He also alleged that Pauline Odili, who worked at the same hospital, falsified PREA testimony concerning an alleged sexual assault and failed to report a crime.

The Court’s Holding

The court concluded that venue was improper in the Eastern District of Texas. Because the civil-rights statutes do not contain a specific venue provision, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and determined that venue lay where the defendants resided or where the claims arose.

The alleged conduct occurred in Galveston County, and all defendants appeared to reside there. Because Galveston County is within the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, the court concluded that the case should be transferred there under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) in the interest of justice. The memorandum opinion stated that an appropriate order would be entered separately; it did not itself declare that the transfer had already occurred.

Key Takeaways

• General federal venue rules under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 govern this § 1983 action because the civil-rights statutes provide no specific venue rule.
• The Eastern District of Texas was not a proper venue because the alleged events occurred, and the defendants appeared to reside, in Galveston County.
• The court concluded that the action should be transferred to the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, with a separate order to follow.

Why It Matters

The opinion illustrates that a prisoner’s place of confinement does not by itself establish venue for civil-rights claims arising elsewhere. Courts instead focus on the defendants’ residence and the location of the events giving rise to the claims.

It also underscores the distinction between an opinion concluding that transfer is appropriate and an order actually effecting that transfer.