Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cain v. Graf, 10th Cir. (1998)
Cain v. Graf, 10th Cir. (1998)
SEP 21 1998
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 97-3328
(D.C. No. 96-3281-GTV)
(D. Kan.)
Defendants-Appellees.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Errol Douglas Cain appeals the district courts dismissal of his
civil rights claims against defendants Warden of Leavenworth Detention Center
William Graf, Medical Supervisor of Leavenworth Detention Center Carrol St.
Clair, and Corrections Corporation of America. Plaintiff also appeals the district
courts transfer to Missouri of his claims against defendant R. Bradford English,
United States Marshal from the Western District of Missouri. Because we
determine that we have no jurisdiction over this matter, we dismiss plaintiffs
appeal. 1
Although the record is not factually complete, it appears that while plaintiff
was being held in the Leavenworth Detention Center awaiting transfer to a
Missouri facility, he incurred an injury to his knee. In his original complaint,
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, he alleged that defendants subjected him to
cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights by
denying him necessary medical treatment. In his amended complaint, plaintiff
This court has an independent duty to inquire into its own jurisdiction.
See Maier v. United States Envtl. Protection Agency
, 114 F.3d 1032, 1036 (10th
Cir.), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 599 (1997).
1
-2-
added a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. 1981, alleging that he was not treated
in the same manner as other similarly situated inmates. He also added as a
defendant Marshal English, alleging that Marshal English was the person who
refused to authorize medical care for plaintiff while he was being held at
Leavenworth.
On October 14, 1997, the district court, on its own motion and before
service on defendants, summarily dismissed plaintiffs claims against the Kansas
defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The
court concluded that plaintiff had alleged no state action in support of his 1983
claims, see Jojola v. Chavez , 55 F.3d 488, 492 (10th Cir. 1995) (to prevail in
federal court, a 1983 plaintiff must show the deprivation of a constitutional
right by a person acting under color of state law), and no racial discrimination in
support of his 1981 claims,
Finally, the court stated that, because the remaining defendant, Marshal English,
resided in Missouri, the case should be transferred to the Western District of
Missouri for further consideration of plaintiffs claims and plaintiffs pending
motions. District Courts Order dated October 14, 1997, at 3. On October 22,
-3-
the files in a case are transferred physically to the court in the transferee district,
the transferor court loses all jurisdiction over the case, including the power to
review the transfer.
lost when the papers in the transferred case are docketed in the transferee court.
See id. at 1517. As the transferor circuit, this court cannot review the transfer
order unless the district court has transferred the case without proper authority, or
the transferee court lacks jurisdiction over the case.
See Chrysler Credit Corp. 928 F.2d at 1517 n.7, 1519. Absent
See Dalton
week of the district courts order, the case file had been physically transferred and
the case had been docketed in Missouri without notice to plaintiff, a hearing, or
an opportunity for plaintiff to seek mandamus relief. Therefore, we construe
plaintiffs notice of appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus,
see Boughton v.
Cotter Corp. , 10 F.3d 746, 750-51 (10th Cir. 1993), and briefly address whether
plaintiff would have been entitled to mandamus relief.
To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, plaintiff must show, inter alia, that he
has no other adequate means to secure the relief desired.
Pacificare of Okla.,
Inc. v. Burrage , 59 F.3d 151, 153 (10th Cir. 1995) (further quotation omitted).
Here, plaintiff can move the Missouri district court for retransfer. Once he has
done so, the transferee appellate court has jurisdiction to review the original
transfer order, affording
1392 (10th Cir. 1991). Therefore, even though the district courts hastily
executed transfer order effectively precluded plaintiff from seeking mandamus
relief, given plaintiffs adequate means of relief in the transferee court, this court
would have denied mandamus, and the district courts error was harmless.
-5-
See id.
In sum, the district court lost jurisdiction on October 22, 1997, the date the
case was docketed in the Western District of Missouri. This date also marks the
termination of appellate jurisdiction in the transferor circuit.
Id. at 1391.
-6-