Meeks v. Bull et al

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White: This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in its entirety for lack of venue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). (case terminated) (acg, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA KAREEM MEEKS, Plaintiff, v. TONYA BULL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV 17-129-RAW-SPS OPINION AND ORDER On April 10, 2017, Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC), filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is seeking compensatory damages for alleged constitutional violations arising from his arrest. The defendants are Tonya Bull and Officer Douglas, both Tulsa County police officers, and four unknown officials. Although his allegations are unclear, Plaintiff apparently is complaining that his Miranda rights, in particular his rights regarding self-incrimination, were violated by the defendants. He, however, has failed to include in his complaint the dates and locations of the alleged violations or the case number of any related criminal proceedings. According to the DOC website at, Petitioner currently is serving a sentence from Tulsa County, Oklahoma, in Case No. CF-2012-5856. Because the alleged events apparently occurred in Tulsa County, the Court finds this case should have been filed in the United States Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, when jurisdictional defects arise because a lawsuit is filed in the wrong district court, the Court must transfer the case to the proper district court, “if the transfer is in the interest of justice.” Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147, 1150 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting F.D.I.C. v. McGlamery, 74 F.3d 218, 220 (10th Cir. 1996)). To determine whether such a transfer would be in the interest of justice, “a court is authorized to consider the consequences of a transfer by taking ‘a peek at the merits’ to avoid raising false hopes and wasting judicial resources that would result from transferring a case which is clearly doomed.” Id. (citing Phillips v. Seiter, 173 F.3d 609, 610-11 (7th Cir. 1999)). A review of Plaintiff’s complaint shows he is seeking compensatory damages for alleged constitutional violations that presumably led to his conviction. To sue for damages, however, he first must prove his “conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254). When judgment for a plaintiff in a § 1983 suit “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id. Plaintiff has presented no evidence showing such invalidation. Therefore, the Court finds is would not be in the interest of justice to transfer this case to the Northern District of Oklahoma. ACCORDINGLY, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in its entirety for lack of venue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of April 2017. _________________________________ RONALD A. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?