United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. The motion will be granted.
Additionally, the Court will dismiss this action for improper
venue and because it is barred by the statute of limitations.
plaintiff Rayfield Thibeaux filed the instant civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his civil rights. Plaintiff sues: Terry M.
Stradtman, Regional Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania);
Rebekah Gee, Director of the Louisiana Department of Health
and Hospitals; and Burl Cain, Warden of the Louisiana State
Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana.
claims that defendant Cain violated his rights when Cain was
the Warden and plaintiff was an inmate at the Dixon
Correctional Institute in Jackson, Louisiana in 1982.
According to plaintiff, he was “implanted” with a
monitoring device in the “left cheek of his
rectum” that is based on a modified version of a
telemedicine instrumentation pack used to monitor
astronauts' health in space. He asserts that he filed for
social security disability in 2010 based on the fact that he
has the monitoring device, but he was given disability based
on a diagnosis of schizophrenia, which he
disputes. Plaintiff states that defendant Cain gave
access to doctors and medics from the mental health systems
to enter the prison grounds to implant the device, and he
asserts that the code for activating the device has been
given to prison guards and the public. He seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages.
the events described in the complaint occurred in the Middle
District of Louisiana; thus, this matter cannot be heard in
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may only be brought
in: “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant
resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in
which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in
which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property
that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if
there is no district in which an action may otherwise be
brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in
which any defendant is subject to the court's personal
jurisdiction with respect to such action.”
the events that gave rise to this case occurred in the Middle
District of Louisiana, venue is improper here.
28 U.S.C. § 1406(b), “The district court of a
district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong
division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the
interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or
division in which it could have been brought.” Because
plaintiff has previously brought a case similar to this one
in the Middle District of Louisiana, the Court does not find
it in the interest of justice to transfer the instant matter
at this time. See Thibeaux v. Cain, 6:14CV2409
RFD-PJH (M.D.LA. September 15, 2014). Additionally,
plaintiffs case was dismissed by the Middle District of
Louisiana as barred by the applicable statute of limitations,
as the illegal surgery allegedly occurred in
1982. See Sulik v. Taney County, Mo.,
393 F.3d 765, 766-67 (8th Cir. 2005) (Section 1983 claims are
analogous to personal injury claims and are subject to
Missouri's five-year statute of limitations); Mo. Rev.
Stat. § 516.120(4).
aforementioned reasons, plaintiffs complaint will be
dismissed because it was filed in the wrong venue and because
it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs complaint is subject to
dismissal because it was filed in the wrong venue and because