There is no evidence on the docke t that the defe ndants have been se rved pr ocess. 1 UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

MART IN A. A RMS TR ON G, P la in t if f, v. Ci vi l A cti on No. 09 -97 2 (H HK) HARVEY LAP P IN et al., De fend ant s.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION AN D O RD ER Plaintiff Martin Armstrong , a prisoner servinga cr iminal sentence , is curre ntly confine d at the Fe dera l Correc tional I nstitut ion Fort Dix, in Fort Dix , New Jersey . Paying the $350.00 fee for filing a civil action, he f

iled a pro se complaint “for persona l injury ,” pursua

nt to 42 U.S.C . §§ 1983, 1985, Bivens v . Six Unknown Age nts of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Fe dera l Tort Claims Act (“F TCA”), 28 U .S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680. The c omplaint names as defe ndants the Dire ctor of the Fe dera l Bure au of Prisons (“ BO P”) and te n unknown B OP
e mpl oye e s. See Compl. at 1, 10. Armstrong ha s also filed a motion for a temporar y restra ining 1 order (“TRO” ). The motion for a TRO will be denied, a

nd the claims for

damag es will be transfe rre d, in the interest of justice, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New Y ork, whe re the alleg ed per sonal injury occur red. I . BA CKGROUND Armstrongwas a

rre sted on September 13, 1999, on a complaint char g ing him with sec urities fra ud. Armstrong v. Gucc ione , 470 F.3d 89, 93 ( 2d Cir. 2006). The same day , the Secur ities andThe SEC’s civil case rema ined open until September 30, 2008. See Orde r, S.E.C. v. 2 Princeton Ec onomics et al., Civil Action 99-9667 (PKC) ( S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2008). - 2 - Ex chang e Commissi on sued him in a civil suit. Id. In the civil suit, the district court order ed Ar mstro ng , a

c or po rate of fi c e r o f t he de fe nd ant, to t

ur n o ve r c e rt a in d oc ume nts and a sse ts i n h is custody or control. Id. Armstrongproduce d some items, but failed to retur n approximately

$15 milli on in corpora

te assets. Id. at 94 . A ft e r h e ari ng s o n mo tio ns , th e dis tr ic t c ourt ha nd lin gthe c ivi l
c a se fo un d A rm str on gin c on te mpt of its or de rs and

on Janu ary 14 , 2 00 0, or de re d th e mars ha ls t o confine Armstrongat the Metropolitan Corr ectional Cente r (“ MCC”) in New Yor k until he either complied with the turnover order s or demonstrate d that it would be impossibl e for him to do so. Id. at 95. On August 17, 2006, Armstrongpled guilty to some of the cr iminal charg es. Id. at 96. Duringthis period, the district court he ld periodic he aring s to ensure that Armstrong ’s contempt confine ment rema ined coe rcive rathe r than punitive. Id. at 95. Armstrongalso filed “nume rous 2 interlocutory

appea ls from the district court’ s repe ated de terminations.” Id. Criminal sentence was imp os e d o n A rm str on gon Ap ri l 10 , 2 00 7, and

his c on fi ne me nt f

or c ivi l c on te mpt

wa s li ft e d o n Apr il 27, 2007. Armstrong v. Grondolsky, C i v i l A c t i o nN o . 0 8
- 5 6 9 ( R M B ) , 2 0 0 8 W L4 4 2 1 1 1 , * 2 ( D
. N
. J. F e b. 14 , 2 00 8) . Afe w d ay s late r, on Ma y 10 , 2 00 7, wh ile sti ll b e inghe ld at MC C, a no the r i nmate attacke d and ser iously

injured Armstrong . Compl. at 1. Be fore and since the contempt conf inement was lifted, Armstronghas ar g ued in var ious courts that under

18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) he is due c redit towar d his criminal sentenc e for the time he spent in confineme nt for civil contempt of c ourt. See, e .g., Armstrong v. Lappin, Civil Action 06- 2221 (UNA ) (De c. 28, 2006) ( transfe rringhabea s petition raising the § 3585(b) issue to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New Y ork, whe re pe titioner was conf ined);Th is m e mor and um o pin ion

and or de r a re no t ava ila

ble fr om t he c ourt ’s e le c tr on ic 3 docket f or re view. Th is m e mor and

um o pin ion

and or de r a re no t ava ila

ble fr om t he c ourt ’s e le c tr on ic 4 docket f or re view. The Court of Appe al for the Second Circuit also g rante d in part the a ppellees’ motions 5 for imposition of a leave -to-file sa nction, and wa

rned Armstrongthat “any future f ilings of fr ivo lou s, me ri tle ss, or

du pli c ativ e a

pp e a ls, mot ion s, pe tit ion s, or oth e r p a pe rs re late d to the c ivi l and cr iminal procee dings discusse d in [ the orde r disposing of that appea l] may

result in the imp os iti on

of a le ave -t o- fi le sanc tio n, un de r whic h A rm str on gwi ll b e re qu ir e d to ob ta in permission” bef

ore f iling additional pape rs with the Second Circuit. Id. - 3 - Armstrong v. Lappin, Civil Action No. 07-2573 ( S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2007) (dismissing habe as petition raising the § 3585(b) f or fa iling to make a

substantial showing of

a denia l of a c onstitut ional rig ht, and ce rtifying that any appea l would not be taken in g ood faith); Armstrong v. Grondolsky, 3 Civ il A c tio n N o. 08 -5 69 (RMB ) ( D. N. J. June 12 , 2 00 8) (d ism iss ing , a ft e r o rd e ri ngc us tod ian to respond, ha

beas pe tition raising 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) issue for failure to exhaust admini strative
re me die s) ; Armstrong v. United States of Americ a, Civil Action No. 08-10946 ( HB ) (S.D.N.Y. D ec. 17 , 2 00 8) (d ism iss ingpe tit ion fo r wri t of

mand amus re g ard ingthe a pp lic atio n o f c us tod

y c re dit under § 3585( b), and c ertify ing that any

appea l would not be taken in g ood faith); Com mo dit y 4 Futures Trading Comm’n v . Princeton Global Mgmt., App. Nos. 08-5899 & 08-5902 (2d Cir. May 4, 2009) (de nying Armstrong ’s “motion for a temporar y restra ining or der ba

rringhis continued confine ment” and grantingappellee s’ motions to di smiss). 5 I I . DI SCUS SI ON In the ac tion filed here , Armstrongasser ts damag es cla ims for an a ssault he suffe red at the ha nd s o f a fe llo w i nmate , Co mpl . at 1- 2, and fo r what he a sse rt s is his ill e g a l c on fi ne me nt d ue to BO P officials’ r efusa l to apply the custody

cre dit he maintains is mandated by § 3585(b), id. at 2-7.- 4 -

Presumably

in an attempt to avoid dismissal on habeas jurisdictional g rounds, the complaint states that “Ar mstrong w ill also seek immediate re lease in a sepa rate action.” Id. at 10. The sole subje ct of the pe nd ingTRO , h ow e ve r, is the § 3 58 5( b) iss ue , a nd the re me dy

so ug ht i s A rm str on g ’s imm e diate rele ase f rom his confineme nt under c riminal sentence
. SeeMo t. f or TRO at 44 (s e e kin gimm e diate rele ase a s relief

). A. Th e Mo tio n f

or a TRO As this court has pre viously instructed Ar

mstrong, “ [h] abea s corpus is the exclusive reme dy for a fede ral prisone r bring ing a claim that would have a ‘pr obablistic impact’ upon the dur ation of his custody .” Armstrong v. Lappin, Civil Action No. 06-2221 ( D.D.C. Dec . 28, 2006) (c iting Chatman-Bey

v. Thornburgh , 864 F.2d 804, 809 ( D.C. Cir. 1988) and W ilkinson v. Dotson , 5 44 U. S. 74, 81-82 (2005) ). Ther efor e, bec ause grantingArmstrong ’s TRO would have the ef fec t of altering the duratio n o f h is c us tod y , h e mus t pu

rs ue that r e lie f t

hr ou g h a ha be a s p e tit ion

a dd re sse d to his
curr ent custodian. Id. at 1-2. In addition, the TRO will be denied be cause Armstronghas not made the showing s require d to obtain a TRO, which include a showingof likelihood of succ ess on the mer its. J ac k so nv ille Po rt Authority v. Adams , 556 F.2d 52, 57 ( D.C. Cir. 1977) (listing “[t]he familiar fa ctors af fec ting the g ra nt o f p re lim ina

ry inj un c tiv e re lie f ( 1) lik e lih oo d o f s uc c e ss o n th e me ri ts, (2 ) i rr e pa ra ble inj ur y to the pla int if

f, (3 ) b ur de n o n th e oth e rs ' int e re sts , a nd (4 ) t he pu bli c int e re st. ” Part ic ula

rl y be c a us e Armstrongseeks to alter , rathe r than to maintain, the status quo, he must be he ld to the stringe nt standards imposed on a

plaintiff see king a

TRO. Judicial W

atch, Inc . v. De

p’t of Commerce

, 50 1 F. Supp. 2d 83, 91 & n.3 (D .D.C. 2007). In the fa ce of the plain languag e of § 3585( b), ArmstrongMo re ov e r, a sh ow ingof

ir re pa ra ble ha rm is r e qu ir e d f

or a TRO . “ Irr e pa

ra ble ha rm is 6 an imminent injury

that is both gre at and c erta in, and that leg al re medies ca nnot repa ir.” City of - 5 - cannot de monstrate a likelihood of suc cess on the me rits. Section 3585(b) provide s in full as fo llo ws : Credit for pr ior custody .--A de fenda nt shall be g iven cr edit toward the service of a te rm of imp ri so nme nt f

or any tim e he ha s sp e nt i n o ff

ic ia l de te nti on

pr ior to t he date the sentenc e commenc es-- (1) a s a re sult of the offe nse for which the se ntence was imposed; or (2) a s a re sult of any

other c harg e for

which the de fenda

nt was ar rested a fter the c omm iss ion

of the of fe ns e fo r whic h th e se nte nc e wa s im po se d; that has not bee n cre dited ag ainst another se ntence . 18 U. S.C. § 3 58 5( b) . A rm str on g ’s c on fi ne me nt f or c ivi l c on te mpt

of c ourt wa s n e ith e r ( 1) the re su lt
o f t h e o ff en s e f o r w h i ch th e [ cr i m i n al ] s en t en ce wa s i mp o s edn o r ( 2 ) t h e r es u l to f a n y o th er ch ar ge for whic h the def

endant wa s arr ested a fter the commission of the offe nse for which the se ntence was imposed. Rather, Ar

mstrong’ s confineme nt for civil contempt did not flow fr om any offe nse or
arr est; it stemmed directly from his ref

usal to produce documents and turnove r asse ts as order ed by the district court in a c ivil procee ding. Ca se law a lso undermines Armstrong ’s ar g ument. Section 3585 “allows c redit only

wher e the pr esente nce de tention resulted fr om ‘the off ense f or which the sentenc e wa s imposed,’ or fr om ‘any other c harg e for

which the de fenda

nt was ar rested a fter the commission of the offe nse for which the se ntence was imposed.’ Plainly a civil contempt confine ment is not withi n these c ateg ories . . . .” Ochoa v . United States , 819 F.2d 366 ( 2d Cir. 1987) (quoting18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)). In light of the plain languag e of the statue at issue a nd pertinent c ase la

w, it cannot be sa id that Armstrongis likely to succe ed on the mer its of his claim. Acc ording ly , his moti on for TRO will be de nied. 6Moundridge v. E xxon M obil Corp. , 4 2 9 F. S u

p p . 2 d 1 1 7 , 1 2 7 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g W is. Gas Co. v . F e d

. E n e r g yR e gu la to r yCo m m 'n , 758 F.2d 669, 674 ( D.C. Cir. 1985)). A c laim for dama g es fo r t he ha rm a lle g e d, wh ic h is the c la im A rm str on gmake s in his c omp la int , und e rm ine s a showing that the injury

is incapable of beingredr essed by money damag es. - 6 - B. The Complaint for Da mag es Claims for damag es under the FT CA are subject to specia l venue pr ovisions. The venue provision for F TCA claims requir es that “[a]ny civil action on a tort c laim ag ainst the United States . . . be prose cuted only

in the judicial district where the plaintiff re sides or whe rein the a ct or omission complained of occ urre d.” 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b). The complaint alleg es that Armstrongwas brutally attacke d while conf

ined at the MCC in New Yor k. Acc ording ly , finding it in the interests of jus tic e and

jud ic ia l e c on omy

to d o s o, the c ourt

wi ll tra ns fe r t his c a se to t

he dis tr ic t w he re ve nu e is proper . 28 U.S.C. § 1406. I I I . CONCLUSI ON AND ORDER F o r th e r e a s o n s s t at e d , i ti s h e r e b y ORDE RED that th e pla int if f’ s mo tio n f

or a TRO is D EN I ED . It is FURTHE R ORDERED that this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Souther

n District of Ne w York. The Clerk is directe d to transmit this case . HENR Y H . KEN

NE DY , JR. J u l y 2 , 2 0 0 9 Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge