UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

DONALD RAY SWIGER, JR. 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA, et al., 

Defendants. 

COFFIN, Magistrate Judge.· 

3:15-cv-1996-TC 

FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff's Application tp proceed in forma pauperis (#1) 

is allowed. However, for the reasons set forth below, 

plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed without service of 

process on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure to 

state a claim. 

Plaintiff alleges that he is currently incarcerated at 

the Lompoc Federal Correctional Institution and that prior to 

being transferred to Lompoc he was incarcerated at the Fort 

1 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-01996-TC Document 4 Filed 11/16/15 Page 1 of 4
Leavenworth Military Prison in Leavenworth, Kansas. 

Plaintiff's claims have to do with the conditions of his 

confinement at Lompoc F.C.I. - which is located in the Central 

District of California, and seeks injunctive relief against 

"federal Employees of Lompoc F.C.I." 1 

A state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a 

nonresident defendant if there exists "minimum contacts II 

between the defendant and the forum state. World-Wide 

Volkswagen Corp. V. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1988).. A 

defendant's contacts with the forum state must be such that 

maintenance of the suit there does not "offend traditional 

notions of fair play and substantial justice" and the 

relationship between the defendant and the forum must be such 

that it is "reasonable *** to require the (defendant) to 

defend a particular lawsuit which is brought there. WorldWide Volkswagen, supra, at 292. A defendant is subject to suit 

where it "purposefully avail itself of the privilege of 

conducting activities within the forum state." Id. at 297. 

See also, Burger King Corp. V. Rudzewi.cz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985). 

Jurisdiction under Oregon's long-arm statute is 

appropriate if within the bounds of federal due process. Due 

process permits the exercise of general jurisdiction over a 

1

Although the only named defendants are the United States of 

America, "The Secretary of the Army," and "Colonel Erica Nelson, 

Commandant, USDB," Leavenworth, Kansas. 

2 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-01996-TC Document 4 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 4
defendant who has 11 substantial 11 or 11 continuous and systematic" 

contacts with the forum state. Fields v. Sedgwick Associated 

Risks, Ltd., 796 F.2d 299, 301 (9th Cir. 1986), citing 

Helicoptoros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 

(1984); Gray & Co. V. Firstenberg Machinery Co., Inc., 913 

F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1990); Cross v. Kloster Cruise Lines, 

Ltd., 879 F. Supp 1304, 1310 (D. Or 1995). 

Plaintiff has not alleged that any of the "federal 

employees of Lompoc" against whom he seeks injunctive relief 

have had any substantial or continuous and systematic contacts 

with the state of Oregon, and no such contacts are apparent 

from the record before the court. 

In short, this court has no jurisdiction over plaintiff's 

claims and no personal jurisdiction over the defendants. 

Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed without prejudice to 

bring an action in the appropriate jurisdiction. 

The Clerk of the Court should be directed to enter a 

judgment dismissing this proceeding. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately 

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice 

of appeal pursuant to Rule 4 (a) (1), Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district 

court's judgment or appealable order. The parties shall have 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this 

3 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-01996-TC Document 4 Filed 11/16/15 Page 3 of 4
recommendation within which to file specific written 

objections with the court. Thereafter, the parties have 

fourteen ( 14) days within which to file a response to the 

objections. Failure to timely file objections to any factual 

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a 

waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the 

factual issues and will constitute a waiver of a party's right 

to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or 

judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's 

recommendation. 

Any appea1 :form an order adopting this Findings and 

Recommendation or judgment dismissing this case wou1d be 

£rivo1ous and not taken in good :faith. 

DATED this ~ay of November, 2015. 

Thomas 

United 

4 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01996-TC Document 4 Filed 11/16/15 Page 4 of 4