Rindahl, Randy v. Pristen, J. et al

Filing 15

ORDER that this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/22/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RANDY RINDAHL,
Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION and ORDER
13-cv-313-bbc

J. PRISTEN, et al.,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In a September 13, 2011 order, I transferred two cases filed by plaintiff Randy
Rindahl, a prisoner incarcerated at the South Dakota State Penitentiary, located in Sioux
Falls, South Dakota, to the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota
after concluding that this court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants, the
governor of South Dakota and various South Dakota Department of Corrections employees.
Now Rindahl has filed a proposed complaint in this court in which he alleges that the
South Dakota governor, state judges and Department of Corrections officials, as well as
United States District of South Dakota and Eighth Circuit judges, have violated his rights
through “Judicial Discrimination and Corruption.”
Usually the court would proceed to examine plaintiff’s financial information to decide
whether he qualifies for in forma pauperis status and then screen his claims after he paid an
initial partial payment of the filing fee, but it is clear at the outset that this case suffers from
the same jurisdictional problem as plaintiff’s earlier cases. Plaintiff is incarcerated in a South

Dakota prison and all of the defendants are South Dakota or federal officials who allegedly
violated his rights in cases taking place in South Dakota or elsewhere in the Eighth Circuit.
Accordingly, I conclude that this court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over
defendants.
28 U.S.C. section 1404(a) provides that, "[f]or the convenience of parties and
witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district or division where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). With the
parties located in South Dakota and the alleged events supposedly having taken place there,
it appears that the District of South Dakota is the most convenient forum for this litigation.
Therefore, I will transfer these cases to the United States District Court for the District of
South Dakota.
If plaintiff brings another suit in this court against persons located exclusively in
South Dakota, I will deny it outright, rather than transfer it. After filing two suits in this
court only to have them transferred, plaintiff has had adequate warning that similar suits will
not be heard by this court. He should file his suits in a court that has jurisdiction over the
proposed defendants.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District

2

Court for the District of South Dakota.
Entered this 22d day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3