Court Opinion

ID: 9457934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:38:35.620933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:34.899604
License: Public Domain

COLEMAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Except for a purported claim for damages this in reality is a suit dealing solely with the internal administration of a federal prison.
It seems clear to me that Congress enacted 28 U.S.C., § 1391(e) (4) for the purpose of allowing a person to seek redress in a conveniently located United State Court without having to go, for instance, all the way to Washington to litigate his rights at that distant point.
The plaintiff complains of procedures followed by prison authorities at Texar-kana. He is in the Eastern District of Texas. The prison officials are there. The clear purpose of the statute is served by giving him a trial in the Eastern District of Texas. The convenience of both the prisoner and the prison authorities, as well as the efficiency of adjudication, would dictate such a result.
The plaintiff, for reasons of his own, is obviously seeking to avoid a trial in the Eastern District of Texas. The majority opinion permits it. I cannot think that Congress could possibly have intended that federal prison authorities would have to chase all over the United States at the whim of the prisoner, who has a readily available federal forum, to defend such suits. It is true that the United States has attorneys everywhere. It is also true that testimony may be taken by deposition, but this procedure denies the trial court, or jury, of a very important function, the opportunity to observe witnesses and assess their credibility.
With deference to the views of my distinguished colleagues, with whom I regret to differ, I think the result in this case was not intended by Congress, will impose added burdens upon prison authorities who. apparently have more to do now than they can reasonably do, and will likewise add to the burdens of the courts, depriving them, as I have said, of the very important ingredient of judging who is telling the truth.
In short," I would look to the real, not the colorable, nature of the case and I would hold that a claim for damages does not change the essential character of this litigation. .The purpose of this lawsuit is to obtain a judicial order to alter administrative procedures and processes within prison walls. I cannot think of an action more local in character.
I would affirm, per curiam, the judgment of the court below.