Cantrell v. Beebe et al Doc.

6
Case 2:07-cv-02038-RTD Document 6 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOLIRT

WESTERNDISTRICTOF ARKANSAS
FORTSMITHDTVISION

JIMMYS}IANE(IANTREI,I- PLAINTIFF

civirNo.
or J03fr
MIKE BEEISE,Governorof the Stateof
ArkansasandFomer AttorneyGeltcral;
SGT.WES'I'tsROOK,PrnpertyOlliccr
at thc EastArkansasRegionalLlnit;
GREGIL\SMON, Warden,EastArkansas
RcgionalUnit; LARI{Y NORRIS.
Director,Arkansasllopartmentof Conection;
ARKANSAS BOARD OF CORRECTION;
SGT,WOFFOR-D, TransportationOfficer
with the ArkansasDepartmentof Concction;
Mlt. CLEMMONS,Oflicct, EastArkansas
RegionalUnit; MIt. BIITLER, OfficLr,Easr
ArkansasRegionaltjnit; .I()IIN DOn, Unknown
Ofticerworkingat the backgateof the EastArkansas
RegionalUnit; JAMES Mc(IORMACK, Clerk,Uniltrj
StatcsDstrict fburt for the EastomDishict of
Arkansas;JOIIN DOE CLERKS,DeputyClerks
for the FlastemDistrict of4rkansas;and
DAVID WHITE, Warden,MaximumSecurif
Unit, Trtcker.Arkansas DEFTNDANTS

Plaintiff, .limmy shanecautrell, is an inmatcin the Maximum seourityunit of the

ArkansasDepafimentof comectionat rucker, Arkansas.He submittcda coffplaiflt frrt filing

in thisdistrictpursuant
to 42 u.s.c. $ Ig83. Thecomplaintwasprovisionally
filedsubjectto

a latetdeteminationofwhetherplaintiff shouldbegrantedin formapauperisstatusandwhether

thecomplaintshouldbe served.

-I-

AO72A
(Rev.8/82)

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 2:07-cv-02038-RTD Document 6 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 2 of 4

Cantrellnamesasdefendants
theGovenrotofthe StatcofArkzursas.
thoArkansasBoard

of correction,vadousofficersemployedat th€ EastArkansasRegionalunit of the Arkzmsas

Department
of Corection,the Wardenof theMaximumSecurityUnit, andthe Clerk of Court

of thc EastemDistriotof Arkansasaswell asthc dcputyclerksemployeclthere. Amongother

things,Cantrcllcontendshis constitutional
fightswercviolatcdwhenhis legalmaterialswcre

placedin storagcat thc EastArkansasRegionaluflit (EARIJ)on December19,2006. cantrcll

contends
theArkansasDepartment
ofCorrection(AI)Ci rtelenriants
rcfrrsedto releasetheIegal

matcrialsto him whenhewastransfenedfromtheEARUto theMaximumSecurityUnit(MSU).

He alsocontendsthc ADc policy regardinginmatepropertycontrolcontainsambiguousanrl

contradictory
Ianguage.

Cantrellchallenges
theADC lirnitationsonthcposscssion
ofpersonalpropertyandlcgal

matetialsby inmatcs.Additionally,hecontends
hispersonalpropertywas
notpromptlyretumed

to him attheendof hispunitivetermonJanuaryI I, 2007.[r thisregard,Cantrellcontcndsthere

are no adequateproceduralsafeguards
to preventthe arbitrary,capdcious,zurdretaliatory

dcprivationof property.

With respcctto thc Clerk of Courtof the Eastemllistrict ol'Arkansasandthe tleputy

clerks,Canttellcontendsthcy altcrcddocketentriesin a pendingca$ehe has in that district

5:05CV.157. Acoessto thedocketsheetin this caseindicatesthecaseis a civil rightscase

cantrell v. Huclmhee,
et al., filcd bytheplaintiff onMay 23,2005. Thedockctcntriesherefers

to asbeingaltcrcdaredocketentry#33 and# 66. Docketentry#33 is a documentfiled as a

motionfor appointmentof counsel. Cantrelloonlendsthe docurncntwas alteredbecause

he

elltitledthe documentas a motion for "orderto showcausc,for a preliminaryinjunction,lor

-2-
 Case 2:07-cv-02038-RTD Document 6 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 3 of 4

appointmcnt
ol'counsel,andfor classactioncerlification"but it wasonly filed asa motionfor

appointment
ofcounscl.However,thedocketsheetalsoreflectsthata motiofl for orderto show

cause,motionfor preliminaryinjunction.motionfor classcertification,andmotionto appoint

wasfiledon April 19,2006,as#36.

counsel

l)ocument66 is entitledmotior for copiesandnoticeofchangeofatldress.Thetlocket

sheetreflectsit wasfiled asa noticeofchangeof adtlress.

This court doesnot havejurisdictionto review the decisionsmadeby other federal

districtcourts.Instead,ifCantrellbelievesthcclcrkofcourthasviolatedhisconstitutional
rights

by refusingto file doouments

assubmittedby him, his reme<ly
is to seekrelief from t}rcEastern

DistrictofArkiursasor thocourt of Appealsfor theEighthcircuit, zs u.s,c. $ I65l (All writs

Act).

With respeotto the remainingdefendants,

it is clearthat venueis not properin this

district. Lr $ 1983cases,venueis determinedby referonceto the generalvenuestatutc,zg

u.s.c. $ 1391.undersection1391(b) venueis properin civil rightsactionsin "(l) ajudicial

districtwhereany defendintresides,if all defendants

resideifl the same$tatc,(2) a judicial

districtirt which a substantial

paft of theeventsor omissionsgiving risc to the claim oocunod

... or {3) ajudicial districtin whiehaly defendant

may befouml,if thereis no districtin which

theaotionnlay otherwisebe hrought."

TheEastArkansasRegionalUnit is in Brickeys,Arkansas.Brickey$is in LeeCounry.

Leecountyiswithin theEastemDistrictofArkansas,TheMaximumsccurityunit is in Tucker,

Atkansas.Tuckcris locatedin JeffersonCounty.JeffersonCountyis within theEastemDistlct

of Alkansas.The Office of theGovemoris locatedin Little Rock,Arkansas.Little Rockis i1

-3-

AO72A
(Rev,8i82)
 Case 2:07-cv-02038-RTD Document 6 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 4 of 4

Pulaskicounty which is within the ErrstenrDistrict of Arkansas. The ArkansasBoard of

corection is madc up of sevenmembersand its ollice is looatedin whitchall, Arkansas.

whitehall is locatedin Jeffersoncounty which is within the EastemDistrict of Arkansas

Undcr28 U.S.C.$ 1406(a),this courtmay transferthis caseto a districtin whichthis

casccouldhaveboenbrought. Thc caseshouldhavobeenbroughtin the EasternDistrict of

Arktursasasthat is the districtwherethe defendants

resideandin which the eventsoccurrcd.

Thcreforc,it appears
theinterestsofjusticewouldbestbeseruedby transferringthiscaseto tlie

EastcmDistriotof Arkansas.

I thereforerecommend
thefollowingr(l ) all claimsagainstJamesMccormack,theclerk

of'Court of the EasternDistrict of Arkansas,andthc Johnl)oe deputyclerksof thc Eastcm

Distticttrf Arkansasbedismissed;and(2) thatthis cascbc tmnslhmedto thoEastemDistrictof

28 U.S.(1.g 1a06(a).
Arkansas.

cflntrell has ten daysfrom recelptofthe report and recommendationin which to

tile written objections pursuflnt to 2g u.s,c. $ 636(b)0), The failure to fite timety

objectionsmey result in waiver of the rlght to appeal question$of fact, cantrell is

remindedthat objectionsmustbeboth timelyand$pecificto triggerdenovoreviewhy the

districtcourt.

DATEDtnis 2t*-dayof Apnl2007.

. JAMESR. MARSCHEWSKI
STATESMACISTRATE .ILTDGE

APR?62007 -4-
4|FEE Jr*' $fl{,a-qfi
ht
IFUITq"RK
AO72A
(R€v. 8/8?)