Pinson v. U.S. Department of Justice
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163781
D.D.C.2014Background
- Plaintiff Jeremy Pinson, an inmate at ADX Florence, sued DOJ, BOP Director Charles Samuels, and OIA Chief John Dignam under FOIA, the Privacy Act, and Bivens, alleging false records, dissemination of inmate records at ADX Florence (identifying him as an informant), and retaliation.
- Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction to stop DOJ/BOP employees from disseminating his inmate records (Privacy Act claim), alleging imminent safety risks at ADX Florence tied to PREA-related complaints.
- Defendants asked the Court to sever and transfer the preliminary injunction/Privacy Act claim to the District of Colorado (where Plaintiff is imprisoned and many witnesses/records are located) and alternatively sought dismissal for failure to exhaust and lack of merit.
- The Court found the preliminary-injunction allegations and Privacy Act claim factually distinct from the FOIA and Bivens claims in the operative complaint and concluded the Privacy Act claim was not logically related to Plaintiff’s FOIA claim.
- Exercising Rule 21, the Court severed the preliminary injunction and sua sponte severed the Privacy Act claim, then transferred both to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); the FOIA and Bivens claims remain in D.C. (Bivens retained partly because the transferee court might lack personal jurisdiction over individual defendants).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the preliminary-injunction/Privacy Act allegations are properly joined with the operative complaint | Pinson contends supplemental factual allegations under Rule 15(d) permit adding the ADX Florence dissemination claims to his existing case | DOJ argues the injunction claims are separate in time, place, and circumstance and thus not logically related under Rule 20/21 | Court: Claims are not logically related; severed the preliminary injunction and Privacy Act claim under Rule 21 |
| Whether the Court should transfer the severed Privacy Act/preliminary-injunction claims to Colorado | Pinson relies on venue provisions and argues some communications occurred in D.C. | DOJ argues convenience, witness/location of records, Plaintiff's incarceration in Colorado favor transfer under § 1404(a) | Court: Transfer to District of Colorado is appropriate under § 1404(a) given convenience and risk of manufactured venue |
| Whether the FOIA and Bivens claims should also be transferred | Pinson brought those claims in D.C. and sought relief here | DOJ sought dismissal/transfer of other claims | Court: FOIA retained in D.C.; Bivens retained in D.C. because transferee may lack personal jurisdiction over individual defendants |
| Whether the preliminary injunction should be dismissed for failure to exhaust or lack of likelihood of success | Pinson implies exhaustion/supplementation proper; seeks injunction | DOJ argued failure to exhaust and no likelihood of success | Court: Did not decide exhaustion/merits here because it severed and transferred the injunction and Privacy Act claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (recognition of implied damages action against federal officers)
- Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1960) (limits on transfer/dismissal and venue principles)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (purpose of § 1404(a) to protect defendants from oppressive forum)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1988) (§ 1404(a) requires individualized, case-by-case convenience/fairness analysis)
- In re Scott, 709 F.2d 717 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (transfer under § 1404(a) requires that the action could have been brought in transferee district)
- Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (factors for transferring prisoner actions; forum convenience for witnesses and records)
- Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (district courts should guard against manufactured venue by naming federal officials)
- Mosley v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974) (logical-relationship test for joinder under Rule 20)
- Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (U.S. 2001) (limitations on Bivens remedies and official-capacity distinctions)