Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MEYER v. RENO

January 3, 1996

BRIAN K. MEYER, Plaintiff,
v.
JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States; KATHLEEN HAWK, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; R.M. BOOHER, Inmate Systems Manager, F.C.I. Memphis; RAY WARREN, RAUL ZAMBRANO, and R. ROBIN STICKLER, Assistant State Attorneys, Florida Seventh Judicial Circuit, and UNKNOWN OTHER DEFENDANTS, Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: RICHEY

 Before the Court in the above-captioned case is the defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Upon careful consideration of the parties' pleadings, the entire record herein, and the applicable law with respect thereto, the Court will grant the defendants' Motion.

 I. BACKGROUND

 The plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the Sandstone Federal Correctional Institution at Sandstone, Minnesota, brings this action pro se and in forma pauperis, alleging that the defendants acted in concert and under the color of state law to deprive him of his "civil and constitutional rights." The gravamen of the plaintiff's claim is that the defendants conspired to secure detainers against him from local authorities in Florida which, in turn, "negatively affected [his] programming and barred plaintiff from 'boot camp' effectively keeping [him] in a higher custody classification and subjecting [him] to longer incarceration than a minimum custody prisoner may have without a detainer." See Complaint, Attachment, p.3. The plaintiff seeks "punitive and compensatory damages in excess of $ 50,000." Id.

 II. DISCUSSION

 The plaintiff does not invoke any basis for recovery nor does he indicate whether he is suing the defendants in their individual or official capacities. While he alleges that the defendants acted under color of state law, a number of the defendants are federal employees. Thus, assuming that the plaintiff is seeking relief against the defendants in their individual capacities, it is unclear whether the plaintiff is suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or directly under the Constitution pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 397, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971). Furthermore, if the defendant is suing the defendants in their official capacities, he does not identify the basis for any such action.

 Consistent with the liberal treatment generally afforded pro se litigants, the Court will consider several possible constructions of the plaintiff's allegations. *fn1" However, notwithstanding the liberal construction of the plaintiff's Complaint, it is still subject to dismissal. The Court is unable to exercise personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants, venue does not lie in this district for any Bivens or § 1983 claim, and the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Sovereign immunity bars any claims against the defendants in their official capacities. Furthermore, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

 A. The plaintiff's claims must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

 1. The Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over defendants Booher, Warren, Zambrano, and Stickler.

 The District of Columbia long arm statute, D.C. Code § 13-423, is the only basis upon which personal jurisdiction may be obtained over defendants who do not reside within or maintain a principal place of business in the District of Columbia. Reuber v. United States, 242 U.S. App. D.C. 370, 750 F.2d 1039, 1049 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The statute provides that a court in the District of Columbia may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant with regard to a claim arising from the defendant's

 
(1) transacting any business in the District of Columbia;
 
(2) contracting to supply services in the District of
 
Columbia;
 
(3) causing tortious injury in the District of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.