UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________ ) LAWRENCE T. TYLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 17-1107 (EGS) ) U.S. FEDERAL BUREAU ) OF PRISONS et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff is a federal prisoner appearing pro se. In the Complaint styled as brought under the Privacy Act, the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), plaintiff challenges the accuracy of information contained in his presentence investigation report (“PSI”) and the alleged adverse effect it is having on his custody in Folkston, Georgia. Plaintiff has sued the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), BOP contractor GEO Group, Inc., which operates the facility where plaintiff is incarcerated, and several GEO employees in their official capacities. Pending are the separate motions of BOP and the GEO defendants to dismiss. Each motion seeks dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for improper venue and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Also pending is plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as to liability. The Court finds that this venue is 1 proper but that plaintiff has stated no viable claim. 1 Therefore, the defendants’ motions will be granted, plaintiff’s motion will be denied, and this case will be dismissed for the reasons explained more fully below. I. BACKGROUND A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas convicted plaintiff of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, seven counts of health care fraud, and one count of money laundering. United States v. Tyler, 626 Fed. App’x 511, 512 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). As a result, plaintiff is serving a 72-month prison sentence. In addition, plaintiff must serve three years of supervised release and pay restitution. Id. Plaintiff has expended an inordinate amount of ink on irrelevant facts pertaining to his trial and convictions. See Compl. at 4-36. Relevant to this action are plaintiff’s allegations that (1) his custody is based on “inaccurate” and/or “incomplete” information in the PSI with regard to “loss amount” and his U.S. citizenship, and (2) defendants have taken no “reasonable steps” to verify the challenged information. Id. at 37-38. As a result, plaintiff alleges, he has suffered “adverse determination[s] . . . such as longer detention, and a restitution award of $1,238,823.08.” 2 Id. at 37. II. LEGAL STANDARD A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In considering such a motion, the “complaint is 1 The venue provisions of both the Privacy Act and the FOIA identify the federal district court in the District of Columbia as a proper venue for such claims. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(5) (Privacy Act); 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) (FOIA). 2 To the extent that plaintiff is challenging part of his sentence, this district court is not a reviewing court and thus lacks jurisdiction ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals