Morrison v. Rochlin et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 47 MOTION to Sever and MOTION to Transfer Case. Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 3/29/17. (bs) [Transferred from pamd on 3/29/2017.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FABIAN T. MORRISON,

:

Plaintiff

:

v

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-1417

:
(JUDGE MANNION)

KAREN E. ROCHLIN, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
MEMORANDUM

I. Background
Plaintiff, Fabian T. Morrison, an inmate housed in the Federal
Correctional Institution, Pollock, Louisiana, originally filed the above captioned
federal civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 5, complaint). The
named Defendants are located at either the Coleman Federal Correctional
Complex (“FCC-Coleman”), Coleman, Florida, the United States Penitentiary
Lewisburg (“USP-Lewisburg”), Pennsylvania or in Washington D.C. and/or the
Central Office. Id.
By Order dated February 1, 2016, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a)1, the
United States District Court for the Eastern District transferred the above
1

Under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), district courts may transfer a civil action to
any district where the action might have been brought “[f]or the convenience
of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.”

captioned action to the Middle District (Doc. 27, Order), where it was received
on July 18, 2016.2 (Doc. 41).
Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants in the above
captioned action:
Defendants Related to FCI-Coleman
Karen E. Rochlin:
Tamyra Jarvis:
Jorge Pastrana:
John Flournoy:
Ganson McManus:
Thomas Matthews:
Nathaniel Bullock:
Erik Rickard:
Margaret Reherman:
Margaret Harris:
Ebelia Carrero:

Criminal Assistant United States Attorney
in Miami, Florida
FCC-Coleman Complex Warden
Former Coleman Warden, Retired
FCI-Jesup Warden, Formerly Associate
Warden at FCC-Coleman
FCI-Herlong Associate Warden, Formerly at
FCC-Coleman
FCI-Coleman- Medium Lieutenant
USP-Yazoo City Unit Manager, Formerly at
FCC-Coleman
USP-Florence ADMAX Complex Captain,
Formerly Lieutenant at FCC-Coleman
FCI-Aliceville, Associate Warden, Formerly Unit
Manager FCC-Coleman
Former Case Manager at FCI-ColemanMedium, Retired
DHO at FCC-Coleman

Defendants Related to USP-Lewisburg
Jeff Thomas:

Former USP-Lewisburg Warden, Retired

2

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed an appeal of the Eastern District
Court’s transfer Order, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on June 20, 2016. (See
Docs. 35, 38, 39, 40).
2

Jeffrey Benfer:
Dave Knox:
Charles Berkoski:
Matthew Edinger:
Robert Marr:
Robert Aderhold:
J.L. Norwood:
Angelo Jordan:

USP-Lewisburg Lieutenant
Unit Manager, Retired
Case Manager
Correctional Counselor
Correctional Counselor
Correctional Counselor
Retired, Former NERO Regional Director
USP-Lewisburg DHO

Defendants Related to Washington D.C. and/or the Central Office
Glen A. Fine:

Acting Inspector General of the Department of
Defense, previously served as IG of the USDOJ
until January 2011
Thomas McLaughlin: Formerly in Office of the Inspector General
Mary Practice Brown: Office of Professional Responsibility
Charles Samuels:
Former BOP Director-Retired
Harell Watts:
Retired Central Office Administrator of National
Inmate Appeals.
(Doc. 48-2, at 3, Declaration of Jonathan Kerr, Senior Consolidated Legal
Center Attorney for USP-Lewisburg).
Plaintiff raises the following six claims within his complaint:
(1) On June 17, 2011, Plaintiff requested the Miami Dade Sheriff
serve AUSA Karen E. Rochlin with a Petition seeking to amend
inaccurate information allegedly located in his Central File and on
July 6, 2011, is subsequently placed in the Special Housing Unit
at FCI-Coleman-Medium.
(2) On July 12, 2011, at FCI-Coleman-Medium a Special
Investigative Services technician planted a weapon within his
lotion bottle and he was issued an incident report and sanctioned
despite exculpatory fingerprint evidence. Harell Watts upholds
sanction on appeal and refuses to turn over latent finger prints.

3

(3) Plaintiff composes letters to “offices of primary interest,
appealing” the FCI Colman-Medium incident report to BOP
Director Charles Samuels, Southeast Regional Director, Harell
Watts, Inspector General Glen Fine, Assistant Inspector General
Thomas F. McLaughlin, and Mary Practice Brown, Office of
Professional Responsibility.
(4) On November 29, 2011, Plaintiff has an SMU hearing and is
recommended for SMU placement by the Southeast Regional
Director, with the final decision illegally designating him to a SMU
made by the DSCC Chief.
(5) On January 29, 2013, at USP-Lewisburg, Plaintiff was issued
a Code 203 Incident Report for Disruption, Most like Extortion
based on fabricated evidence and sanctioned.
(6) While at USP-Lewisburg, Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to
toxic chemicals causing resultant eye irritation, exacerbation of
glaucoma, choking and sneezing.
(Doc. 5, at 3-8).
Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to transfer the
above captioned action back to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, (Doc. 45) and Defendants’ motion to sever
and transfer claim numbers one through four to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida. (Doc. 47). For the following reasons,
the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to transfer the action back to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and grant
Defendants’ motion to sever and transfer claims one through four to the

4

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
II. Discussion
Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a) sets forth the proper test for determining whether
parties are properly joined in an action. In pertinent part, the Rule provides:
(a) Permissive Joinder. All persons ... may be joined in one
action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly,
severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or
arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact
common to all defendants will arise in the action. A plaintiff
or defendant need not be interested in obtaining or defending
against all the relief demanded. Judgment may be given for one
or more of the plaintiffs according to their respective rights to
relief, and against one or more defendants according to their
respective liabilities.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(emphasis added). Courts have broad discretion in
applying Rule 20 to reduce inconvenience delay, and added expense to the
parties and to the court, and to promote judicial economy. 7 Charles Alan
Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure §1653 at 410-12 (3d ed. 2001).
Moreover, the court may sever any claim against a party, either in response
to a motion or sua sponte, and then proceed with each separately. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 21.
The Plaintiff’s complaint includes a host of unrelated claims spanning
a period of months and years and involves many individuals. Plaintiff does not

5

allege that these claims arose out of the same transaction or occurrence or
series of transactions or occurrences. Moreover, it does not appear that
Plaintiff’s various claims involve an issue of law or fact common to all
Defendants. Finally, it appears that the Court has personal jurisdiction over
only nine of the twenty-five named Defendants, as they are either
Pennsylvania residents, or have had continuous and systemic contact with
Pennsylvania, the forum state. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945); Saudi v. Acomarit Maritimes Services, S.A., 114
Fed.Appx. 449, 452 (3d Cir. 2004).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit has held that where a case could have been brought against
some defendants in the transferee district, the claims against those
defendants may be severed and transferred while the claims against the
remaining defendants, for whom transfer would not be proper, are retained.
White v. ABCO Eng’g Corp., 199 F.3d 140, 144 (3d Cir. 1999) (“Nothing within
§1404 prohibits a court from severing claims against some defendants from
those against others and transferring the severed claims.”); see also
D’Jamoos ex rel. Estate of Weingeroff v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 566 F.3d 94,
110 (3d Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to

6

sever and transfer Plaintiff’s claims one through four, to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida3, as the Middle District of Florida
is the proper venue4 for these claims. Venue for the remaining claims, five
through six, lies within the Middle District, as that is the judicial district in
which a substantial part of the alleged events giving rise to the claims
occurred.5 Because none of the named Defendants, nor events complained
of, occurred in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Plaintiff’s motion to transfer the above captioned action to the
Eastern District will be denied. An appropriate order shall issue.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
Dated: March 29, 2017
O:\Mannion\shared\MEMORANDA - DJ\CIVIL MEMORANDA\2016 MEMORANDA\16-1417-01.wpd

3

The Court notes that claims raised against those Defendants located
in Washington D.C. and/or the Central Office are encompassed in Plaintiff’s
claims one through four, and will be transferred to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida. Determination of personal jurisdiction
over those Defendants shall lie with the transferee court.
4

A plaintiff may bring a civil action in “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[.]”
28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2).
5

A fully briefed dispositive motion directed at these claims has already
been filed by the Defendants. (See Docs. 49, 51, 52, 63).
7