Meyer v. Alaska Public Defender

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION

SHAUN MEYER, CIV. 21-5013-JLV Plaintiff, ORDER vs. ALASKA PUBLIC DEFENDER, Defendant.

Plaintiff Shaun Meyer, appearing pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. (Docket 1). Mr. Meyer seeks records from the Defendant Alaska Public Defender for the time period of 2002-2006. Id. Because Mr. Meyer is proceeding pro se, his pleadings must be liberally construed and his complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[F]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction . . . .” United States v. Afremov, 611 F.3d 970, 975 (8th Cir. 2010). “[A] court may not proceed at all in a case unless it has jurisdiction.” Crawford v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 267 F.3d 760, 764 (8th Cir. 2001). “[F]ederal courts are obligated to raise the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.” Id. at 764, n.2 (citing Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co., 436 U.S. 604, 608 n.6 (1978)). Mr. Meyer is a federal prisoner housed in Rochester, Minnesota. (Docket 1). See also Federal Bureau of Prisons, Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/ inmateloc/ (last visited March 25, 2022). The Alaska Public Defender’s Office is the Federal Public Defender for the District of Alaska and has no offices or personnel in the District of South Dakota.1 The District Court for the District of South Dakota has no jurisdiction

over the Alaska Public Defender, its staff or attorneys. In other words, the court has no subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint (Docket 1) is dismissed without prejudice. Dated May 4, 2022. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Jeffrey L. Viken JEFFREY L. VIKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1See https://ak.fd.org/ (last visited March 25, 2022). 2