From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Benjamin v. Hicks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Jul 31, 2018
CASE NO. 18-CV-935 (D. Conn. Jul. 31, 2018)

Opinion

CASE NO. 18-CV-935

07-31-2018

LOPEZ P. BENJAMIN, Plaintiff, v. CHAPLIN HICKS, ET AL. Defendants.


ORDER OF TRANSFER

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has brought claims pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). He initially filed his suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered the case transferred to the District of Connecticut because the Defendant was incarcerated at FCI Danbury in Danbury, Connecticut at the time he filed his suit. [Dkt. No. 4]. Judge Kollar-Kotelly noted that Bivens claims are properly brought in the judicial district in which the offending defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events occurred. [Dkt. No. 4 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009); Simpkins v. District of Columbia, 108 F.3d 366, 369 (D.C. Cir. 1997)]. She also noted that FTCA claims may be brought only in the district where the plaintiff resides or where the act or omission complained of occurred. [Dkt. No. 4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b))].

The transfer became effective on June 4, 2018, and the Clerk entered Chambers' standard case opening orders on that date. The Clerk then mailed copies of these orders to the Plaintiff at FCI Danbury, where Judge Kollar- Kotelly's decision stated that Plaintiff was incarcerated. These mailings were returned as undeliverable because Plaintiff was not in fact incarcerated at FCI Danbury at the time of the transfer. Shortly thereafter, an inmate search located Plaintiff at Rivers Correctional Institution in Winton, North Carolina.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly's original transfer order was proper. However, Connecticut now has no connection to this action; none of the parties reside here and none of the events giving rise to this action took place here. All of the Defendants to this action reside in either North Carolina or Minnesota and the Plaintiff now resides in Winton, North Carolina by virtue of his incarceration at the Rivers Correctional Institution. Further, a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's causes of action took place in Butner, North Carolina, where the Plaintiff was previously incarcerated. The Eastern District of North Carolina is therefore a more convenient forum, and it is in the interest of justice to transfer this case there, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

SO ORDERED this 31st Day of July, 2018 at Hartford, Connecticut.

/s/_________

Honorable Vanessa L. Bryant

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Benjamin v. Hicks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Jul 31, 2018
CASE NO. 18-CV-935 (D. Conn. Jul. 31, 2018)
Case details for

Benjamin v. Hicks

Case Details

Full title:LOPEZ P. BENJAMIN, Plaintiff, v. CHAPLIN HICKS, ET AL. Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Date published: Jul 31, 2018

Citations

CASE NO. 18-CV-935 (D. Conn. Jul. 31, 2018)

Citing Cases

Zephyr Aircraft Corp. v. United States, (1952)

We think there is no such legal rule. The English case of Chaplin v. Hicks, 1911, 2 K.B. 786 goes as far as…

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Tatum

" In the English case of Chaplin v. Hicks, [1911] 2 K.B. 786, the plaintiff had been selected as one of 50…