UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .,^

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO v r > ^'

EASTERN DIVISION

201] JUL 17 PM 1^:52

Timothy Doyle Young, 0..>; l; , .

Plaintiff, n'v, C' l; i

V. Case No. 2:17-cv-194

Karen L. Haas, et al., Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendants. Magistrate Judge Kemp

OPINION AND ORDER

On May 16, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kemp Issued a Report and

Recommendation ("R&R") recommending the Court deny Plaintiffs motions to

proceed in forma pauperis, EOF Nos. 4, 6, in this prisoner civil rights case. R&R,

EOF No. 8.

The R&R notes the following. Plaintiff is an inmate housed in Colorado.

Plaintiffsues both Karen Haas, the Clerk of the United States House of

Representatives and the United States Attomey for the Southem Districtof Ohio.

Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Haas violated his rights by not accepting a letter he sent

her asking the House to begin impeachment proceedings against Judge Neil

Gorsuch^ and that the U.S. Attomey violated his rights by not responding to a

court order issued in a different case. The Complaint further alleges that these

^At the pertinent time. JudgeGorsuch—now Justice Gorsuch—^sat onthe Court of

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Case: 2:17-cv-00194-MHW-CMV Doc #: 13 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 168
civil rights violations piaced Plaintiffs iife in danger. Plaintiff moved for leave to

proceed In forma pauperls.

With respect to the pending motions, the R&R explains that this Court has

dismissed a previous suit filed by Plaintiff pursuant to the "three strikes" rule.

The R&R concludes that, although 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) permits a prisoner with

three strikes to nonetheless bring a subsequent suit in forma pauperls ifthe

prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury, the mere recitation

of that phrase in Plaintiffs Complaint is insufficient to warrant in forma pauperls

status in this case. R&R 2-3, ECF No. 8.

Plaintiff objected to the R&R in one sentence: "the Magistrate's Report

simply states that the allegations are 'insufficient' which requires amend-ment not

dismissal." Obj., ECF No. 11.

Plaintiffs objection Is merltless. The R&R Is not recommending dismissal

of Plaintiffs Complaint. Rather, the R&R recommends denying Plaintiffs motions

for leave to proceed In forma pauperis. The objections are therefore

OVERRULED.

However, the Court declines to adopt the R&R. The Court conducted a de

novo reviewof the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), which review revealed

that Plaintifffiled an Amended Complaint as an attachment to his second motion

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Am. Compl., ECF No. 6-1. The

Magistrate Judge screened the original Complaint, ECF No. 1, rather than the

Case No. 2:17-cv-194 Page 2 of 3

Case: 2:17-cv-00194-MHW-CMV Doc #: 13 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 169
Amended Complaint, EOF NO. 6-1, which did not get detached and filed as a

separate docket entry. See R&R, EOF No. 8 (analyzing the original Complaint).

Upon review of the Amended Complaint, the Court determines that this

case should be transferred to the District of Colorado. Plaintiff is an inmate at

USP Florence Admax in Florence, Colorado. The only claim in PlaintifTs

Amended Complaint that even potentially pleads imminent danger of serious

physical injury arises from injuries that allegedly occurred during his

imprisonment in Colorado. Venue in this Court is therefore not proper. See 28

U.S.C. § 1391 (venue is proper in the judicial district where any defendants

reside or in which the claims arose). Accordingly, because the only claim that

could potentially warrant IFP status arose from incidents occurring at ADMAX,

this action is TRANSFERRED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 to the United States

District Court for the District of Colorado.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:17-cv-l 94 Page 3 of 3

Case: 2:17-cv-00194-MHW-CMV Doc #: 13 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 170