This document discusses a motion to transfer a case from the Southern District of Indiana to the Northern District of Ohio. The United States argues that Ohio is the most appropriate venue because: 1) The events giving rise to the complaint (the alleged negligence regarding property forfeiture) occurred in Ohio as part of the plaintiff's criminal prosecution in Ohio; 2) Most witnesses and relevant documents are located in Ohio; and 3) Ohio would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses. The plaintiff opposes transfer, but the United States maintains that Ohio has the strongest connection to the case and transfer would serve judicial economy and fairness.

1. 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
JAMES LEE WHEELER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Cause No. 2:14-cv-00210-WTL-WGH
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Defendant. )
DEFENDANT=S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. ' 1404(A)
I. INTRODUCTION
On August 27, 2014, Plaintiff James Lee Wheeler filed his First Amended Complaint
(“complaint”) in the Southern District of Indiana, alleging that the United States and specifically
the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio, “dispose[d] of, by auction
sale, the property ordered forfeit[ed] by the Ohio Federal District Court” following his conviction
of substantive Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) offenses, RICO
conspiracy offenses, and drug conspiracy charges.1
See United States v. Wheeler, 535 F.3d 446
(6th Cir. 2008). (Dkt. 7, ¶ 5, 6, 8; Dkt. 7-1 at 2). Wheeler alleges that employees of the Ohio
United States Attorney’s Office involved in the forfeiture aspect of his criminal sentence violated
the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) in their administration of the alleged forfeiture of seven
properties located in Indiana, and he seeks $1,127,000 in damages as a result of the alleged
negligence. (Dkt. 7, & 10).
1
Wheeler’s convictions and sentences for the substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy offenses
were reversed on appeal. Wheeler, 535 F.3d at 458. However, the conviction and sentence of
life imprisonment for the drug conspiracy was affirmed. Id.
Case 2:14-cv-00210-WTL-WGH Document 20 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 115

2. 2
On December 30, 2014, the United States filed its motion to transfer the case to the
Northern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A) because the vast majority of the
witnesses and documents were located in Ohio, Ohio is the location where the alleged negligence
occurred, Ohio would be the most convenient forum in which to litigate the matter, and the transfer
would be in the interest of justice. (Dkt. 15, 16.)
On January 20, 2015, Wheeler filed his opposition to the motion to transfer, primarily
arguing that he is located in Indiana and that the deeds and property documents are located in
Indiana. (Dkt. 18.) However, these arguments fail to call into question the appropriateness of
transferring this case to the Northern District of Ohio
In short, Ohio is the most suitable venue for this case. The pertinent files and records
regarding the alleged negligence are in Ohio; the vast majority of witnesses, all of whom are
familiar with Wheeler’s conviction and sentence, which included the forfeiture action, are in Ohio;
and, as a practical matter, Ohio is the best forum to enforce and monitor any relief that may be
awarded in this case. Further, it is in the interest of justice to resolve litigation in the locale of
Wheeler’s criminal conduct and subsequent adjudication. Whether Wheeler’s FTCA claim is
litigated in Indiana or Ohio, the choice of venue is of minimal value to Wheeler as he serves a life
sentence for drug conspiracy in federal prison. As discussed below, consideration of these factors
weighs heavily in favor of transfer of this case to the Northern District of Ohio.
II. ARGUMENT
A. The Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses Support Transferring the Case to
Ohio
In evaluating the convenience and fairness of a transfer, the court considers relevant
private and public interests. Relevant to Wheeler’s complaint, these private factors include: (1)
Case 2:14-cv-00210-WTL-WGH Document 20 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 116

3. 3
the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the situs of material events; (3) the relative ease of access to
sources of proof; (4) the convenience of the witnesses; and (5) the convenience to the parties of
litigating in the respective forums. Law Bulletin Publ’g Co. v. LRP Publ’n, Inc., 992 F. Supp.
1014, 1017 (N.D. Ill. 1998); Int'l Truck & Engine Corp. v. Dow-Hammond Trucks Co., 221 F.
Supp. 2d 898, 905 (N.D. Ill. 2002). Additional public factors related to judicial economy (e.g.,
the relationship of the community to the issue of the litigation and the desirability of resolving
controversies in their locale; the court's familiarity with applicable law; and the congestion of the
respective court dockets and the prospects for an earlier trial) are additional factors in favor of
transfer. Int’l Truck & Engine Corp. at 905 (citing to Hughes v. Cargill, Inc., 1994 WL 142994 at
*2 (N.D.Ill. April 14, 1994)). In weighing these private and public factors, this motion for
transfer of venue to the Northern District of Ohio should be granted.
1. Wheeler’s choice of forum should be given minimal deference and does not
weigh against transfer
The plaintiff’s choice of forum is generally granted substantial weight, particularly when
the plaintiff resides in the chosen forum and the conduct and events giving rise to the cause of
action took place in the selected forum. Barnes v. Rollins Dedicated Carriage Servs., Inc., 976 F.
Supp. 767, 768 (N.D. Ill. 1997). Here, Wheeler contends that his choice of forum should be given
substantial deference because he is domiciled in Indiana and the transfer will impose “an
unreasonable burden on him.” (Dkt. 18 at 3.) However, these assertions are insufficient to
overcome well-established case law that where the plaintiff’s choice of forum is not the situs of the
material events, or it has a relatively weak connection to the events, a plaintiff’s chosen forum is
entitled to less deference. Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286, 1293 (7th
Cir. 1989); Von Holdt v. Husky Injection Molding Sys., Ltd., 887 F. Supp. 185, 188 (N.D. Ill.
Case 2:14-cv-00210-WTL-WGH Document 20 Filed 01/30/15 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 117

4. 4
1995); Int’l Truck and Engine Corp., 221 F. Supp. 2d at 904 (where conduct at issue did not take
place in plaintiff’s preferred forum, plaintiff’s preference has “minimal value”). Furthermore, it
must be noted that Wheeler’s place of incarceration is subject to the sole authority of the Bureau of
Prisons and its broad discretion to transfer an inmate at any time to any correctional facility. See
18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (“The Bureau may at any time . . . direct the transfer of a prisoner from one
penal or correctional facility to another.”). Finally, past and current litigation between Wheeler
and parties within the Northern District of Ohio suggests that Wheeler’s location is not
insurmountably inconvenient. Therefore, this Court should give minimal deference to Wheeler’s
chosen forum of Indiana.
2. The relative ease of access to sources of proof weighs in favor of transfer
Secondly, the pertinent documents relating to the alleged negligence are located in Ohio.
While Wheeler’s contends that “documents and records concerning the acquisitions and transfers
of the properties . . . are located in [Indiana],” Wheeler is mistaken. (Dkt. 18 at 5.) Because
federal authorities in Ohio litigated Wheeler’s drug conspiracy case, which included forfeiture
provisions as part of his sentence, the pertinent files and records relating to the forfeiture remain in
Ohio. Documents relating to the recording of deeds may exist in Indiana, but the more
substantive sources of proof concerning the forfeiture action do not. They remain in Ohio.
Although documents can be transported between forums, this factor weighs in favor of transfer
when the documents remain in the location of the original adjudication. Tensor Group, Inc. v. All
Press Parts & Equip., Inc., 966 F. Supp 727, 730 (N.D. Ill. 1997). Therefore, the relative ease of
access to sources of proof in Ohio favors this motion to transfer.
3. The situs of material events weighs in favor of transfer
The situs of material events can weigh heavily in favor of a § 1404(a) venue transfer.
Case 2:14-cv-00210-WTL-WGH Document 20 Filed 01/30/15 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 118

5. 5
Doage v. Bd. of Regents, 950 F. Supp. 258, 260-61 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (granting transfer in
employment discrimination case). Such is the case here. It is undisputed that the material events
of Wheeler’s criminal activities primarily occurred in Ohio. And Wheeler’s significant ties to
Ohio are undisputable as well—indeed, Ohio was the epicenter of his criminal activities.
Because the situs of this matter is in Ohio, the adjudication of Wheeler’s complaint in Indiana
would be inefficient and burdensome to the Indiana district court. Therefore, this factor also
weighs in favor of this motion to transfer venue.
4. The convenience to the parties and witnesses litigating the matter weighs in
favor of transfer
In this case, the Southern District of Indiana would be an inconvenient forum as nearly all
of the prospective witnesses are located in the Northern District of Ohio. Although the real
properties that were subject to Wheeler’s complaint are physically located in Indiana, the Ohio
United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District is in the best position to answer
Wheeler’s claim given their access to records, potential witnesses, and pertinent federal agents.
Moreover, Wheeler has already chosen to litigate additional actions regarding his conviction and
sentence in the Northern District of Ohio and thus cannot claim that it is an inconvenient forum for
subsequent litigation. Transfer to the Northern District of Ohio would convenience the parties
and the majority of the witnesses, and this factor weighs in favor of transferring the case to the
Northern District of Ohio.
This is not a case where the effect of transfer is simply to shift inconvenience. Rather, the
inconvenience to the United States outweighs the convenience of this forum for Wheeler. As
discussed, material events underlying this lawsuit have little nexus with this District beyond the
mere physical presence of the forfeited properties, and the majority of the individuals with the
Case 2:14-cv-00210-WTL-WGH Document 20 Filed 01/30/15 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 119

6. 6
most material knowledge of these events are located in Ohio. Accordingly, these factors weigh in
favor of transfer. See Chicago, Rock Island and Pac. R.R. Co., 220 F.2d 299, 303-304 (7th Cir.
1955) (finding Illinois district court abused its discretion where court denied transfer to Iowa
where none of the conduct complained of occurred in Illinois, both parties must rely upon evidence
of events entirely removed from Illinois, and the distance to be traveled by the parties= witnesses
was greater to Illinois than Iowa).
B. The Interests of Justice Support Transferring the Case to Illinois
The final consideration on a § 1404(a) motion includes “conditions which are in
furtherance of the administration of justice.” Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 220
(7th Cir. 1986). The interest of justice relates to the efficient functioning of the court. Coffey,
796 F.2d at 221. The administration of justice is served more efficiently when the action is
litigated in the forum that is “closer to the action.” Law Bulletin Publ’g, Co., 992 F. Supp. at 1020
(quoting Paul v. Lands’ End, Inc., 742 F. Supp. 512, 514 (N.D. Ill. 1990)). In this case, Ohio is
“closer to the action” and has a greater interest in this litigation than Indiana. See Doage, 950 F.
Supp. at 262 (transfer was appropriate to location of plaintiff’s employer in employment
discrimination case so as to resolve “litigated controversies in their locale”); Bryant v. ITT Corp.,
48 F. Supp. 2d 829, 835 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (holding that state in which plaintiff worked when he was
denied benefits had a stronger interest in resolving the litigation); See Amorose v. Ch.H. Robinson
Worldwide, Inc., 521 F. Supp. 2d 731, 737-38 (N.D. Ill. 2007); Hanley v. Omarc. Inc., 6 F. Supp.
2d 770, 777 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
Finally, while this Court may be able to enforce relief in Ohio, as a practical matter, courts
recognize that the forum “closer to the action” is the better forum to enforce and monitor any relief
awarded. See Law Bulletin Publ’g, Co., 992 F. Supp. at 1021 (finding request for injunctive relief
Case 2:14-cv-00210-WTL-WGH Document 20 Filed 01/30/15 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 120

7. 7
weighed in favor of transfer). As such, the interests of justice weigh in favor of transfer.
Additionally, traditional notions of judicial economy merit transferring this claim to Ohio.
Transfer of venue to Ohio would ensure judicial economy because Ohio is the original forum of
adjudication, and where the records, potential witnesses, and related federal agents reside. In the
interest of justice, the United States should be able to litigate this claim in United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
III. CONCLUSION
A transfer of venue from this District to the Northern District of Ohio is clearly appropriate
under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because Illinois, on balance of the relevant factors, is the more suitable
venue for this case. Accordingly, for the reasons states herein and in its Memorandum in Support
of Motion to Transfer Case to Northern District of Ohio Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A), the
United States respectfully requests this Court transfer this action to the United States District
Court, Northern District of Ohio.
Respectfully submitted,
JOSH J. MINKLER
Acting United States Attorney
s/Debra G. Richards
By: Debra G. Richards
Assistant United States Attorney
Case 2:14-cv-00210-WTL-WGH Document 20 Filed 01/30/15 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 121

8. 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 30, 2015, a copy of the foregoing document was mailed,
by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following:
James Lee Wheeler
Reg. No. 01227-017
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808
s/ Debra G. Richards
Debra G. Richards
Assistant United States Attorney
Office of the U.S. Attorney
10 West Market Street, Suite 2100
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317-226-6333
Case 2:14-cv-00210-WTL-WGH Document 20 Filed 01/30/15 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 122