The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION
Timothy Kindstrom,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:22-cv-50041
v.
Honorable Iain D. Johnston
County of Lake, Illinois, Lake County
Sheriff, Kimberly Furrer Lenzini,
Daniel Brown, Michael Nerheim,
Michael Melius, Daniel Lenzini,
Jordana Ballesteros, and Rachel
Hamm,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Timothy Kindstrom brings this seventeen-count action pro se
against the various Defendants for alleged violations of his constitutional rights.
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for an intra-district transfer to the Eastern
Division. For the reasons explained below, that motion [26] is denied.
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a
district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it
might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have
consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). As the moving party, Defendants bear the burden
of establishing that the desired forum is “clearly more convenient.” Coffey v. Van
Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219–20 (7th Cir. 1986). The ultimate decision on
whether to transfer rests within the discretion of the district judge, after a case-by-
case consideration of convenience and fairness. Rsch. Automation, Inc. v. Shrader-
Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973, 977 (7th Cir. 2010). That discretion is broad and
encompasses all factors relevant to the convenience of the parties and the interests
of justice. Id. The analysis is two-fold. First, courts consider any factors that may
weigh on convenience. Second, courts consider any factors that may weigh on the
interests of justice.1 Id. at 978.
Defendants argue in favor of transfer on the grounds that the situs of the
material events was allegedly in Lake County, Illinois. Furthermore, because they
reside in Lake County, Defendants point out the inconvenience to them of having to
travel to Rockford for any in-person hearings. Defendants further point out that the
public transportation options to this Court are less than the public transportation
options in the Eastern Division. Defendants additionally contend that there may be
witnesses in Lake County that are equally inconvenienced if they are required to
travel to the Western Division.
In response, Kindstrom contends that he will have at least thirteen witnesses
that reside in the Western Division, in McHenry County. He asserts that seven of
those witnesses live in Woodstock, Illinois. Those witness, he continues, would be
inconvenienced if they had to travel into Chicago for these proceedings. They would
have to pay additional money to use public transportation, or pay for parking, which
is not a concern if they travel to the Western Division, where parking is more
readily available—and free, for at least the first two hours. He further contends
1 Defendants made no argument in favor of transfer under the interests of justice element
of the test, and the Court knows of no reason why the interests of justice would favor
transfer, outside of those factors that are considered under the convenience prong of the
analysis.
that traffic driving into the City of Chicago would make the commute for any
hearing substantially longer. Finally, Kindstrom points out that he is litigating this
case pro se, and so he often needs to drive to the courthouse to file documents after
getting them stamped by the Clerk of Court. These frequent trips are significantly
more convenient for him if the case remains in the Western Division, versus
requiring him to drive into Chicago in the Eastern Division. Finally, he points out
that his complaint invokes some court cases in McHenry County, Illinois, that are
involved in the conspiracy he alleges. Thus, he argues, the Defendants are wrong to
contend that all material events occurred in the Eastern Division.
At the outset, it should be noted that the likelihood of witnesses coming to
court for anything other than trial is extremely remote. So, this issue is not of major
concern as a practical matter. Nevertheless, to be sure, any time parties and
witness straddle the borders of two judicial districts or divisions, someone will be
inconvenienced. That is certainly the case here, but others (maybe more) would be
inconvenienced if the Court granted transfer. Furthermore, the Court finds
persuasive Kindstrom’s argument that he will have a heightened interaction with
the Court on an in-person basis because of his status as a pro se litigant. This
potential need for frequent travel to the courthouse, in addition to the convenience
of the thirteen witnesses, weighs in favor of keeping the case in the Western
Division.
Furthermore, courts generally do not grant motions to transfer venue unless
the defendant presents compelling arguments sufficient to disturb the plaintiff’s
choice of forum. Indeed, disturbing a plaintiffs choice of forum should be rare. In re
Nat'l Presto Indus., 347 F.3d 662, 663-64 (7th Cir. 2003). Here, Defendants have
not met their burden of establishing that the Eastern Division is “clearly more
convenient.” Coffey, 796 F.2d at 219-20. They point only to convenience factors and
have not argued that any interest of justice factor affects the analysis. But
Kindstrom invokes the same convenience factors in favor of keeping this action in
the Western Division. Indeed, Kindstrom contends that more witnesses reside in
the Western Division, and that he will be especially inconvenienced as a pro se
litigant. Thus, the Court declines to disturb Kindstrom’s choice of forum.
Defendants’ motion to transfer [26] is denied.
Date: July 5, 2022 SS.
Honorable Iain D. Johnston
United States District Judge