Barroca v. United States

Background

Robert Barroca, a federal prisoner incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution Beckley in West Virginia, alleged that Bureau of Prisons medical professionals provided negligent medical care at several federal prisons. He alleged that, beginning in 2009 at a federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, medical personnel failed to perform recommended surgery for problems involving his right elbow. He alleged that the failure continued after transfers to prisons in California, Kansas, California again, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

Barroca also alleged negligent treatment for esophageal reflux disease, pain in his knees and left elbow, and an injury to his right foot during his incarceration at the federal prison in Leavenworth, Kansas. He asserted six medical-negligence counts under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a federal law allowing certain claims against the United States for torts committed by federal employees. He sought compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Motion to Transfer

The United States filed a second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case from the Northern District of California to the District of Kansas. That statute allows a federal court to transfer a civil case to another federal district where the case could have been filed when transfer would serve convenience and the interests of justice.

The court first found that the case could have been brought in the District of Kansas because Barroca alleged numerous relevant acts and omissions during his incarceration at the federal prison in Leavenworth. For Federal Tort Claims Act cases, venue is proper where the complained-of act or omission occurred.

Court’s Analysis

The court evaluated the relevant transfer factors:

- The factor concerning the location of relevant agreements did not apply because the case involved tort claims rather than a contract. - The governing-law factor favored transfer. The court expected that Kansas law would control most of the claims because the alleged tortious conduct underlying those claims first occurred at the Leavenworth prison. Indiana law would govern the right-elbow claims that Barroca alleged began at the Terre Haute prison. - Barroca’s choice of the Northern District of California weighed only slightly against transfer. Although he alleged that he had lived there before his incarceration and intended to return there, he had not resided there since at least 2005, and none of the alleged conduct occurred in that district. The California prisons involved in his allegations were in the Central District of California, not the Northern District. - The parties’ contacts with the Northern District and the contacts between that district and the claims favored transfer. The court found Barroca’s past or anticipated connections to the Northern District unrelated to the claims, while his more recent Kansas contacts were directly related to them. - The relative cost of litigation favored transfer. The court reasoned that Barroca’s counsel’s office was closer to Kansas, that counsel would likely handle most court appearances, and that three medical professionals identified by the United States still lived in Kansas. - The factor concerning the ability to require unwilling non-party witnesses to attend did not favor either side. Neither party identified a non-party witness who would be unwilling to travel to the other district. - Access to evidence favored transfer because most of the alleged events occurred in Kansas and more sources of proof were likely to be accessible there than in the Northern District. - The convenience of witnesses favored transfer. Barroca had not identified witnesses other than himself who would find the Northern District more convenient. The United States identified three Kansas medical practitioners described in the complaint as alleged tortfeasors.

Overall, the court stated that six factors favored transfer, one weighed only slightly against transfer, and two weighed neither for nor against transfer. It also emphasized that none of the parties currently resided in the Northern District, none of the relevant events occurred there, no potential witness was likely to reside there, and no identified evidence was located there.

Disposition

The court granted the United States’ second motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and transferred the action to the District of Kansas. The opinion did not decide the merits of Barroca’s medical-negligence claims.