Parker v. Bureau of Prisons
- John Tunheim
- 0:20-cv-02314
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Handsome Peter Parker v. Bureau of Prisons, Judge Kent transferred the case to Minnesota because venue was proper there and did not review the merits.
The transfer affects Handsome Peter Parker and the defendants by moving the case from the Western District of Michigan to the District of Minnesota. The order did not decide the merits of Parker’s claims.
What happened
Handsome Peter Parker sued the Bureau of Prisons and several officials, claiming that his transfer to a federal prison camp in South Dakota placed him more than 500 miles from his family. He filed the civil-rights case without a lawyer.
The court determined that the case belonged in the District of Minnesota because the challenged events occurred at the Sandstone facility in Pine County, Minnesota, and the defendants served there. It therefore transferred the case under the federal venue statute.
Judge Ray Kent ordered the transfer from the Western District of Michigan to the District of Minnesota. The order expressly stated that the court had not reviewed the merits of Parker’s complaint.
The detailed version
- Parker v. Bureau of Prisons · No. 0:20-cv-02314
- John Tunheim
- Nov. 10, 2020
Background
Handsome Peter Parker brought a civil-rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The opinion states that Parker was incarcerated at the Yankton Federal Prison Camp in Yankton, South Dakota, and that the events underlying his complaint occurred at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Pine County, Minnesota.
Parker sued the Bureau of Prisons, the Sandstone Institution, and several identified and unidentified officials. In his complaint, which he filed without a lawyer, Parker alleged that he should not have been transferred to the Yankton camp because it was more than 500 miles from his family.
Venue ruling
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which provides that a federal-question case may be filed where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying the claim occurred. The court concluded that venue was proper only in the District of Minnesota because the relevant events occurred in Pine County and the defendants were public officials serving there.
Disposition
The court ordered that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Judge Ray Kent’s order expressly stated that the Western District of Michigan had not reviewed the merits of Parker’s complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.