Young v. Haas

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER: This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 7/17/2017. (ew)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ., ^ v r > ^' EASTERN DIVISION 201] JUL 17 PM 1^:52 Timothy Doyle Young, 0..>; Plaintiff, V. Karen L. Haas, et al., Defendants. l; , . n'v, C' l; i Case No. 2:17-cv-194 Judge Michael H. Watson Magistrate Judge Kemp OPINION AND ORDER On May 16, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kemp Issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending the Court deny Plaintiffs motions to proceed in forma pauperis, EOF Nos. 4, 6, in this prisoner civil rights case. R&R, EOF No. 8. The R&R notes the following. Plaintiff is an inmate housed in Colorado. Plaintiff sues both Karen Haas, the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Attomey for the Southem District of Ohio. Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Haas violated his rights by not accepting a letter he sent her asking the House to begin impeachment proceedings against Judge Neil Gorsuch^ and that the U.S. Attomey violated his rights by not responding to a court order issued in a different case. The Complaint further alleges that these ^At the pertinent time. Judge Gorsuch—now Justice Gorsuch—^sat on the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. civil rights violations piaced Plaintiffs iife in danger. Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed In forma pauperls. With respect to the pending motions, the R&R explains that this Court has dismissed a previous suit filed by Plaintiff pursuant to the "three strikes" rule. The R&R concludes that, although 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) permits a prisoner with three strikes to nonetheless bring a subsequent suit in forma pauperls if the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury, the mere recitation of that phrase in Plaintiffs Complaint is insufficient to warrant in forma pauperls status in this case. R&R 2-3, ECF No. 8. Plaintiff objected to the R&R in one sentence: "the Magistrate's Report simply states that the allegations are 'insufficient' which requires amend-ment not dismissal." Obj., ECF No. 11. Plaintiffs objection Is merltless. The R&R Is not recommending dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaint. Rather, the R&R recommends denying Plaintiffs motions for leave to proceed In forma pauperis. The objections are therefore OVERRULED. However, the Court declines to adopt the R&R. The Court conducted a de novo review of the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), which review revealed that Plaintifffiled an Amended Complaint as an attachment to his second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Am. Compl., ECF No. 6-1. The Magistrate Judge screened the original Complaint, ECF No. 1, rather than the Case No. 2:17-cv-194 Page 2 of 3 Amended Complaint, EOF NO. 6-1, which did not get detached and filed as a separate docket entry. See R&R, EOF No. 8 (analyzing the original Complaint). Upon review of the Amended Complaint, the Court determines that this case should be transferred to the District of Colorado. Plaintiff is an inmate at USP Florence Admax in Florence, Colorado. The only claim in PlaintifTs Amended Complaint that even potentially pleads imminent danger of serious physical injury arises from injuries that allegedly occurred during his imprisonment in Colorado. Venue in this Court is therefore not proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (venue is proper in the judicial district where any defendants reside or in which the claims arose). Accordingly, because the only claim that could potentially warrant IFP status arose from incidents occurring at ADMAX, this action is TRANSFERRED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. IT IS SO ORDERED. ICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case No. 2:17-cv-l 94 Page 3 of 3

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?