Lasseque v. USA et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Withdraw Complaint; denying as moot 9 Motion to Dismiss. In light of the foregoing, Lasseque's Motion to Withdraw (document no. 15) is granted to the extent he seeks to voluntarily withdraw his complaint, without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The government's Motion to Dismiss (document no. 9) is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court shall close the case. So Ordered by Judge Steven J. McAuliffe. (lw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

David Lasseque,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 18-cv-109-SM
Opinion No. 2019 DNH 197

United States of America,
Defendant

O R D E R

Pro se plaintiff, David Lasseque, is a federal inmate
currently incarcerated at the Rhode Island Adult Correctional
Institution, in Cranston, Rhode Island.

He brings this action

against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims
Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. (the “FTCA”).

Lasseque alleges that the federal Bureau of Prisons
negligently misclassified him as a “maximum security” inmate
when, in fact, he should properly have been classified as a
“medium security” inmate.

And, says Lasseque, BOP officials

then refused/neglected to correct that error after they were
made aware of it.

Then, while he was incarcerated at USP

Allenwood (a maximum security prison), Lasseque says he was
assaulted by several inmates, resulting in injuries to his face
and neck.

Thus, says Lasseque, the negligence of the United

States proximately caused him to suffer personal injury.

He

also claims that, in the wake of his assault, he was denied
appropriate medical care, in violation of his rights under the
Eighth Amendment.

In response to Lasseque’s complaint, the government moved
to dismiss on two grounds, asserting: first, that venue is
improper in this forum; and, second, that the discretionary
function exception to the FTCA bars Lasseque’s suit.

Lasseque

acknowledges that his suit “was filed in the wrong court” and
moves the court “to withdraw his complaint for a change of
venue.”

Motion to Withdraw (document no. 15) at 2.

The

government does not object to Lasseque voluntarily dismissing
the action, but urges the court not to transfer venue to another
district “because the action is barred by the discretionary
function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.”
Response (document no. 16) at 1.

Government

Parenthetically, the court

notes that Lasseque has not moved the court to transfer venue to
another court.

In light of the foregoing, Lasseque’s Motion to Withdraw
(document no. 15) is granted to the extent he seeks to
voluntarily withdraw his complaint, without prejudice.
U.S.C. § 1404(a).

See 28

The government’s Motion to Dismiss (document

2

no. 9) is denied as moot.

The Clerk of Court shall close the

case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
November 20, 2019
cc:

David Lasseque, pro se
Robert J. Rabuck, AUSA

3