Robinson v. White
Filing
3
Memorandum of Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e), but without prejudice to any state law claims he may seek to assert. The Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 9/24/2014. (H,CM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
NATHANIEL ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN WHITE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:14 CV 0662
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:
Pro se plaintiff Nathaniel Robinson filed the above-captioned in forma pauperis civil
action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §1346. He names fellow inmate Brian
White as the Defendant. Plaintiff, who was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Center
Greenville (F.C.I. Greenville) in Illinois when he filed the Complaint, alleges the Defendant
assaulted him without provocation. He does not specify what relief he is seeking, but wants “this
all to be rehabilitated to its proper stability.” (Doc. No. 1 at 5.)
Background
On June 21, 2012, Plaintiff was watching television in the day room at F.C.I. Yazoo City
in Mississippi. Defendant approached Plaintiff and asked if he had a personality conflict with
him. Plaintiff stated that he did not, but the Defendant continued to engage him in a hostile
manner. The Defendant suggested he “had something” for Plaintiff inside of his cell and invited
him to join him there. When Plaintiff “turned to address this issue” he was struck by the
Defendant with a homemade knife, approximately 8 to 10 inches in length. Because this
altercation took place just outside of the entrance to the day room, other inmates attempted to
break up the exchange. After Plaintiff was struck several times, the compound officers entered to
stop the incident.
Plaintiff was transported to a hospital in Yazoo City to address his injuries. While at the
hospital, he complains “there was a bigger diversion with the exam nurse and the transport
officer that caused the exam results to be eluded [sic] and my being attentive towards requesting
[sic] for victim of crime detoured.” (Doc. No. 1 at 6.) While it is difficult to decipher Plaintiff’s
relevant claim, he seems to suggest there was some “conflict of interest” between reports
generated by the hospital and by the prison.
Finally, Plaintiff makes vague allegations that “ineffective counseling and or poor
socialability [sic] of the institutional system . . . [are] keeping me targeted with recurring antics
and tactics of irreparable harm.” (Doc. No. 1 at 7.) Although he does not elaborate further, he
concludes the Complaint stating: “This is still pending with Federal Bureau.” Id.
Standard of Review
Complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs are held to “less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nevertheless, “‘the
leniency afforded to a pro se litigant with respect to mere formalities does not relieve [his]
burden to meet jurisdictional requirements. ” Kelley v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378,
1380 (Fed.Cir.1987)); see, e.g., Spotts v. United States, 429 F.3d 248, 250 (6th Cir.2005). A
district court is required to dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) if it fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v.
City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). For the reasons stated below, this action
is dismissed pursuant to section 1915(e).
-2-
Federal Tort Claims Act
On the face page of the Complaint form, Plaintiff checked the block marked “CIVIL
COMPLAINT: pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act [FTCA], 28 U.S.C. §§1346, 2671-2680,
or other law.” (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) Under the FTCA, “district courts ... shall have exclusive
jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, ... for injury
or loss of property ... caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the
Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment....”. 28 U.S.C. §1346.
The Act constitutes a limited waiver of sovereign immunity and authorizes suit against the
United States, making the federal government liable in the same manner and to the same extent
as a private party would be for certain torts of federal employees acting within the scope of their
employment. Schindler v. United States of America, 661 F.2d 552, 554 n. 2 (6th Cir.1981).
Plaintiff has not filed this action against the United States, nor has he named a federal
employee or sought money damages. Rather, he accuses another inmate of defaming and
injuring him physically and emotionally. Thus, a careful review of the Complaint discloses that
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim over which this Court has jurisdiction.
Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1631
When a court determines it lacks jurisdiction, it must transfer the case to a court where
the action could have been brought, if the transfer “is in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631
(2012). Proper venue in a district court is defined by statute, which provides that a civil action
may be brought in
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides,
if all defendants are residents of the State in which
the district is located;
(2) 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; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section,
any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with
respect to such action.
-3-
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The events of which Plaintiff complains occurred at F.C.I. Yazoo City in
Mississippi, where he is also attempting to serve the Defendant. At the time he filed this
Complaint, Plaintiff was incarcerated in Illinois, although he is currently located in Terre Haute,
Indiana.1 The district court to which this matter could be transferred, if in the interest of justice, is
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
The Court cannot find that justice would be served by transferring Plaintiff’s allegations
of personal assault, when no federal district court has jurisdiction over such an action under the
FTCA. For this reason, the undersigned declines to transfer Plaintiff's complaint to the District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e), but without prejudice to any state law claims he may seek to assert. Further, the Court
certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: September 24, 2014
1
Plaintiff may be the same Nathaniel Robinson who was convicted and sentenced in this Court
on July 6, 2009. See United States of America v. Morgan et al., No. 1:08-cr-00140 (N.D.
Ohio)(Gaughan, J.) The place of his conviction and sentence bears no relevance to proper venue,
however.
2
The statute provides in relevant part: “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial
court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?