Davis v. U.S.A.

Background

Raheem Davis, also known as Allah Virtue Realty Reserve, filed this action without a lawyer while incarcerated at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri. His initial filing sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the federal statute used for certain challenges to the execution of a federal sentence. He later filed numerous additional submissions, including requests for damages. The court treated those later submissions as supplements to the initial filing.

The court understood Davis to be asserting several categories of claims:

- Claims challenging how the Bureau of Prisons was carrying out his federal sentence, including his conditions of confinement, lack of access to courts, and food, which the court treated as claims under § 2241. - Damages claims against individual current or former federal officers or employees for alleged constitutional violations under federal law, which the court treated as claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. - Damages claims against the United States for alleged tortious conduct by federal officers or employees within the scope of their employment, which the court treated as claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. - Possible state-law damages claims against individuals who were not current or former federal officers or employees.

The court stated that Davis’s submissions were difficult to understand. It described allegations involving the conditions at the Missouri facility, a military satellite allegedly assaulting him, and alleged torture, assaults, stabbings, and murders of family members by former Presidents, federal officers or employees, and others.

Reasoning

The court held that a federal prisoner’s challenge to the execution of a federal sentence, including a challenge to conditions of confinement, generally must be brought in the federal district where the prisoner is confined. Davis remained confined in Springfield, Greene County, Missouri, which is within the Western District of Missouri. The Southern District of New York therefore lacked jurisdiction under § 2241 over those claims. Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a) and 1631, the court transferred the § 2241 claims to the Western District of Missouri in the interest of justice.

The court explained that claims for § 2241 relief and damages claims under Bivens and the Federal Tort Claims Act may be considered in the same action. It also noted that Davis had previously been recognized as subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes filing bar, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for civil actions filed without prepaying fees, unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court did not decide whether that bar applied to any of Davis’s claims. It stated that the Western District of Missouri could make that determination.

For the damages claims, the court found that venue in the Southern District of New York was uncertain because Davis did not allege where he or the individual opposing parties lived. The court also observed that the alleged events appeared to have occurred largely or entirely at the Missouri facility. It therefore concluded that the Western District of Missouri was the more convenient and appropriate venue under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1402(b) and 1404(a), and transferred the Bivens, Federal Tort Claims Act, and state-law claims there as well.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The order closed the action in the Southern District of New York, and summonses were not to issue from that court. The order did not resolve the merits of Davis’s claims or decide whether he was barred from proceeding without prepaying fees. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue and denied fee-free status for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.