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)

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 https://www.ok.gov/doc/, 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