United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
STEVEN HAYNES REG. # 06238-078
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL.
KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court is a civil rights complaint [doc. 1] filed pursuant
to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 91 S.Ct. 1999
(1971), by Steven Haynes, who is proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis in this matter. Haynes is an
inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and is
currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution at Oakdale, Louisiana (“FCIO”).
However, his claims relate to disciplinary proceedings
against him during his incarceration at the Federal Prison
Camp in Pensacola, Florida (“FPCP”). This matter
has been referred to the undersigned under 28 U.S.C. §
636 and the standing orders of the court for initial review.
complains of disciplinary proceedings at FPCP, through which
he was convicted of Possession, Manufacture, or Introduction
of a Hazardous Tool (Cellular Phone), a violation of BOP
Offense Code 108. Doc. 1, att. 2; see doc. 1, att.
3, pp. 5-6. As a result the disciplinary hearing officer at
FPCP imposed the following sanctions: (1) disallowance of 41
days of good conduct time, (2) forfeiture of 54 days of
non-vested good conduct time, and (3) loss of commissary and
phone privileges for six months. Doc. 1, att. 3, p. 6. Haynes
complains that the investigation of this incident and the
manner in which the disciplinary hearing was conducted
resulted in violation of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth,
and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and
that the sanctions amount to cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Doc. 1, att. 2. He now
seeks restoration of his good conduct time, expungement of
the incident and disciplinary reports, and any monetary award
the court deems appropriate. Doc. 1, p. 5.
in a Bivens action seeking monetary damages is
governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Stafford v.
Briggs, 100 S.Ct. 774, 784-85 (1980). That statute
permits venue only in (1) the judicial district where any
defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the state
where the district court is located (2) the district where a
substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the
claim occurred, or (3) if there is no district which
qualifies under the above two provisions, any judicial
district in which any defendant is subject to the court's
personal jurisdiction with respect to the action. None of the
defendants named herein resides in Louisiana. Furthermore, all
of the complained-of events - other than denials of
Haynes's requests for administrative remedies, which do
not give rise to a separate claim for relief and at any rate
would not constitute a substantial part of the acts or
omissions at issue - occurred at FPCP, in the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida. Therefore venue is plainly
improper in this court for plaintiff's Bivens
suit, and is only proper in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida.
district court where a suit is filed determines that venue is
improper, it has the discretion to either dismiss the suit
or, “if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such
case to any district or division in which it could have been
brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). This court
exercises its discretion to transfer the matter. We note,
however, that Haynes's requests for restoration of good
conduct credit and expungement/reversal of the disciplinary
proceedings and conviction must be raised through a petition
for writ of habeas corpus, not a Bivens suit.
E.g., Edwards v. Carvajal, 2016 WL 2637901,
at *2 (W.D. La. Mar. 5, 2016), report and recommendation
adopted, 2016 WL 2727048 (W.D. La. May 5, 2016); Carbajal
v. Riley, 2009 WL 1788407, at *3 n. 4 (W.D. La. Jun. 17,
2009). Venue over a § 2241 petition is proper in this
court as the district where Haynes is currently incarcerated.
Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 373-74 (5th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, the claims for expungement/reversal should be
dismissed without prejudice as improperly filed under
Bivens and may be refiled in this court as a
petition for writ of habeas corpus.
foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that
Haynes's claims for restoration of good conduct time and
expungement/reversal of his disciplinary conviction and
proceedings be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
and that the remaining claim, seeking monetary relief under
Bivens, be TRANSFE ...