UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MARK JORDAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 21-cv-00614 (CKK) ) ) US BUREAU OF PRISONS, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Mark Jordan is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and is currently, and at all times relevant to the Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, designated to the United States Penitentiary located in Tucson, Arizona (“USP Tucson”). He sues the BOP under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., seeking review of a prison disciplinary determination. Compl. at 1. BOP has filed a Motion to Transfer (“MTT”), ECF No. 10, this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, which Plaintiff opposes, ECF No. 14 (“Opp’n”). 1 For the reasons discussed below, BOP’s Motion to Transfer will be granted and this matter will be transferred to the District of Arizona. I. BACKGROUND 1 On June 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time, ECF No. 12, to file his Opposition, which he then filed on July 28, 2021, approximately a month and a half beyond the deadline. Plaintiff has shown good cause for an extension, namely, frequent prison-lockdowns and logistical issues arising from COVID-19 protocols at USP Tucson, as well as delayed receipt of BOP’s Motion to Transfer. See id. at 1–2. Furthermore, BOP has not opposed this request for extension. Therefore, the Court will grant nunc pro tunc Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension. 1 Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on March 5, 2021, “seeking review of an agency decision” under the APA. Compl. ¶ 1. He asks this Court to declare and overturn “his prison disciplinary conviction for ‘running a business’ as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, not in accordance with and without procedures required by law, and otherwise [based] upon factual lacking substantial evidentiary record support.” Id. More specifically, he seeks to vacate and expunge a determination, resulting from a July 2019 hearing, and held by the Unit Discipline Committee (“UDC”) at USP Tucson. See id. ¶¶ 21–7; id. at p. 8. Plaintiff was found guilty of the prohibited act of “conducting a business without authorization.” See id. ¶¶ 10–24. He was sanctioned with a 120-day loss of commissary privileges. Id. ¶ 23. He contends that (1) the conviction lacked an adequate evidentiary basis (Claim I), (2) the conviction was obtained in violation of law because UDC members acted as their own witnesses and investigators (Claims II and III), and (3) UDC lacked statutory authority to impose any disciplinary sanction other than a loss of good-conduct time (Claim IV). 2 See id. at pp. 7–8. As background, on July 15, 2019, USP Tucson prison guards executed a “shakedown” of Plaintiff’s cell and confiscated various unopened food items and a notebook entitled “store,” that “contained names and figures.” See id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff maintains that all of these food items were, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals