Opinion ID: 3062064
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismissal or Transfer

Text: As required by circuit precedent, the magistrate judge went on to consider whether the district court should exercise its discretion not to dismiss the claim against defendant Lappin but to transfer it to a forum with personal jurisdiction over him. See, e.g., Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1222-23 (10th Cir. 2006). In conducting this inquiry, the district court may “tak[e] a ‘peek at the 2 (...continued) basis of inadequate appellate briefing by plaintiff on appeal. While not very effective as advocacy, his briefing is sufficient to place the merits of the district court’s decision before us. In any event, defendants have not been prejudiced; they clearly knew the operative legal issues and have addressed them at length in their own briefing. See Arocho, 367 F. App’x at 950 n.8 (declining similar suggestion by defendants on prior appeal). -7- merits’ to avoid raising false hopes and wasting judicial resources that would result from transferring a case which is clearly doomed.” Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147, 1150 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting Phillips v. Seiter, 173 F.3d 609, 610 (7th Cir. 1999)). As explained in Phillips, there is no paradox in this peek at the merits by a court that “lack[s] jurisdiction to adjudicate [the case] fully,” as the court is merely acting on its authority “to decide [the limited question] whether to transfer or dismiss” the case. Phillips, 173 F.3d at 611. Here, the magistrate judge concluded transfer was not warranted because defendant Lappin’s lack of personal involvement in the denial of treatment would undercut any claim on the merits against him. See Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253, 258 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (holding BOP Director could not be held liable in absence of participation in “any decision or approv[al of] any policy that related to the case”); see Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152, 1164-65 (10th Cir. 2011) (making same point as to claim against state Secretary of Corrections). The district court properly exercised its discretion in declining to transfer on this ground. 3 3 To avoid misunderstanding, we clarify one point. A supervisory federal official like the BOP director may be held liable for his “personal involvement in the acts causing the deprivation of a person’s constitutional rights” or “if he implements a policy so deficient that the policy itself acts as a deprivation of constitutional rights.” Cronn v. Buffington, 150 F.3d 538, 544 (5th Cir. 1998); see Brown, 662 F.3d at 1164-65 (making same point as to claim against state Secretary of Corrections). The second basis for liability is significant in that it points to a divergence between the analysis of personal jurisdiction and liability on the merits: as we have noted, defendant Lappin may not be haled into court (continued...) -8-