APHONSO THOMAS 02468303 v. JUDGE KERRY RUSSELL ET AL (2026)

TRANSFER ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Aphonso Thomas, confined at the Choice Moore Unit in Bonham, Texas, filed a civil-rights complaint against four defendants. Dkt. 1. The action was referred to me in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule CV-72.

The complaint arises from Thomas's criminal prosecution in Smith County, Texas. Id. at 5. It names as defendants (1) Smith County District Judge Kerry L. Russell; (2) Smith County District Attorney Jacob Putnam; (3) Edward Estrada, Thomas's attorney in the criminal case; and (4) the American Bar Association. Id. at 3.

The proper venue for this civil action is determined by reference to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which provides that

[a] civil action 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 a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; 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.

Because the events or omissions giving rise to Thomas's claim occurred in this judicial district, see 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(1); Dkt. 1 at 5, venue lies in this district under § 1391(b)(2).

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), however, provides that, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other ․ division where it might have been brought.” Section 1406(a) similarly provides that “[t]he district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division ․ shall ․ , ․ if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any ․ division in which it could have been brought.” Magistrate judges may order transfers under § 1404(a). See E.D. Tex. General Order 95-2 (Jan. 2, 1995) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)).

Although not limitless, a court's discretion to order transfer under § 1404(a) is broad. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 311 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). And “Congress, by the enactment of § 1406(a), recognized that the interest of justice may require that the complaint not be dismissed but rather that it be transferred in order that the plaintiff not be penalized by ․ time-consuming and justice-defeating technicalities.” Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 467 (1962) (quotation marks omitted).

Although Thomas filed suit in the Sherman Division of this district, his complaint concerns events related to his prosecution in Smith County, which lies in the Tyler Division of this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(1). The complaint also indicates that three of the four defendants are located in the Tyler Division. Dkt. 1 at 3. A transfer of the case from the Sherman Division of this district to the Tyler Division of this district is warranted “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses” and “in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

It is ORDERED that the clerk of court TRANSFER this action without delay to the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 15th day of April, 2026.

Bill Davis United States Magistrate Judge