Blankenship vs. Unnamed

Filing 4

TRANSFER ORDER. Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 5/29/2014. ~ This action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file and send any pending motions o r further documents received from Blankenship referring to this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electr onic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
In Re: MARK A. BLANKENSHIP,
Fed. Reg. #83718-022,
Plaintiff,
_____________________________

)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 14-00238 DKW/KSC
TRANSFER ORDER

TRANSFER ORDER
Before the court is Mark A. Blankenship=s letter seeking assistance in
commencing an action. Blankenship is incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary
in Pine Knot, Kentucky (AUSP McCreary@). Although he requests Athe Court to
address this as a 2255 motion >writ of Habeus Corpus[,]=@ Blankenship complains solely
of the conditions of his confinement at USP McCreary. Blankenship states that he is a
disabled veteran confined in a wheelchair. He claims that he was attacked by two
inmates at USP McCreary and is Aexposed to convicts who beat me, steal my food,
[and] extort my belongings.@ Mot., Doc. No. 1. He says he requires surgery, but
must be transferred to another facility to be accommodated. The court construes
Blankenship=s request as a civil rights complaint brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

Blankenship does not name any prison officials who are allegedly
responsible for his claims or submit an in forma pauperis application or payment for
commencing this action. Because venue is improper in Hawaii and transfer is in the
interests of justice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1406(a), this action is TRANSFERRED to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
I.

DISCUSSION

When jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity, such as civil rights
actions brought under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 or Bivens, venue is proper in the district in
which: (1) any defendant resides, if all of the defendants reside in the same state; (2) 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) any
defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be
brought. 28 U.S.C. ' 1391(b); see also Ziegler v. Indian River Cnty., 64 F.3d 470 (9th
Cir. 1995) (extensive discussion on jurisdiction); Lee v. Corr. Corp. of America, 525 F.
Supp. 2d 1238, 1241 (D. Haw. 2007).
Blankenship is incarcerated in Kentucky. Although he was convicted
and sentenced in Hawaii, his claims have no apparent connection to Hawaii. He

2

complains of incidents that occurred or are occurring in Kentucky. Venue for
Blankenship=s claims alleging USP McCreary officials are failing to protect him from
other inmates or are denying him medical care lies in the District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, where USP McCreary is located. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1391(b).
AThe district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the
wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such
case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.@ 28 U.S.C. '
1406(a). The interests of justice favor transferring this case to the district where the
significant events or omissions material to Blankenship=s claims occurred, witnesses
may be found, there is access to the necessary evidence, and there is a local interest in
resolving the matter. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1406(a); see also King v. Russell, 963 F.2d
1301, 1305 (9th Cir. 1992).
Blankenship is notified that transferring this action to Kentucky does not
prevent him from challenging the validity or constitutionality of his conviction or
sentence in CR. No. 12-00641 HG in Hawaii, but he must do so by way of a motion to
vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. ' 2255. See Tripati v.

Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 1988).

3

II.

CONCLUSION

This action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file
and send any pending motions or further documents received from
Blankenship referring to this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii,

In Re: MARK A. BLANKENSHIP, Fed. Reg. #83718-022; CIV No. 14-00238 DKW KSC;
TRANSFER ORDER

4