Headrick v. David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center

• Court: District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
• Decided: September 24, 2024
• Docket: 6:24-cv-00323
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JOSHUA DAVID HEADRICK,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 24-CV-323-JFH-JAR

DAVID L. MOSS CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Joshua David Headrick (“Headrick”) is a pro se pretrial detainee who is incarcerated in the Wagoner County Jail in Wagoner, Oklahoma. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. On September 11, 2024, he filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, naming the David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center (“DLMCJC”) in Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the sole defendant. Id. at 1. Headrick alleges he was sexually assaulted on February 20, 2024, while incarcerated at DLMCJC. Id. at 5. He is seeking “justice” and compensation for his pain and suffering. Id. at 7. A civil action may 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; [or]

(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, . . . .

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2). The defendant in this matter is located in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and the alleged sexual assault occurred in that Tulsa County facility. Dkt. No. 1 at 3, 5. Tulsa County is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Northern District of Oklahoma. 28 U.S.C. § 116(a). Because this Court is located in Muskogee County, Oklahoma, within the Eastern District of Oklahoma, proper venue does not lie in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 116(c). Thus, this action should be dismissed without prejudice for improper venue. Plaintiff may file a proper complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, where the DLMCIJC is located. If Plaintiff files a new complaint, the Court advises that “to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48,(1988) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The Court finds the DLMCIC is not a “person.” See Hinton v. Dennis, 362 F. App’x 904, 907 (10th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010) (“[T]he Creek County Criminal Justice Center is not a suable entity under § 1983.”) (citing Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424, 444 (10th Cir. 1985)). Accordingly, if Headrick decides to file a new complaint in the proper district court, he must name the person or persons who allegedly violated his constitutional rights while “acting under color of state law.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for improper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Headrick’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. Dated this 24th day of September 2024.

C )eteé tL2wW JOHN F. HEIL, Ill UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE