United States District Court, D. Oregon
Claire E. Poulin, Claire E. Poulin Law LLC, Portland, OR, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Christopher J. Mertens, Miller, Mertens & Comfort, PLLC, Kennewick, WA, Attorney for Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
GARR M. KING, District Judge.
Plaintiff, an inmate at Two Rivers Correctional Institution ("T.R.C.I."), brings a civil rights complaint against Nicolas F. Arrendondo, M.D., the doctor who performed plaintiff's back surgery. Plaintiff's only remaining claim is that Dr. Arrendondo failed to provide sufficient information to allow plaintiff to give informed consent, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pending before me is Dr. Arrendondo's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue . For the following reasons, I deny the motion and find venue to be proper in the District of Oregon.
Plaintiff alleges that in February 2010, he was transferred from T.R.C.I. in Umatilla, Oregon to Providence St. Mary Medical Center in Walla Walla, Washington. He alleges Dr. Arrendondo examined plaintiff's back and informed him that without surgery he would become paralyzed. Dr. Arrendondo explained that after the surgery there was a 6% chance plaintiff would experience pain with ejaculation. Plaintiff informed Dr. Arrendondo he would have to think about whether to undergo the recommended surgery.
Plaintiff quickly concluded he would proceed with the surgery. He signed medical papers at the prison infirmary in March 2010.
On June 15, 2010, at the Providence St. Mary Medical Center, Dr. Arrendondo performed back surgery on plaintiff which involved an incision in his groin area. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the surgery he cannot get an erection. In January 2011, plaintiff wrote Dr. Arrendondo from T.R.C.I. asking about the problem. Two months later, Dr. Arrendondo told him it might take 24 months to recover fully. Plaintiff alleges he has not fully recovered.
Plaintiff alleges that the risks of the surgery were not fully explained to him, and that he would have declined surgery had Dr. Arrendondo told him he may not be able to get a full erection.
I previously dismissed plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim on the ground that plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that Dr. Arrendondo acted with deliberate indifference.
Dr. Arrendondo now moves to dismiss plaintiff's lawsuit for improper venue. Although Dr. Arrendondo initially moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim, he has withdrawn that motion. Def.'s Reply 2, 4.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) permits a court to dismiss a claim for improper venue. Further, if a case is filed in the wrong district, the court "shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406.
A civil action may be brought in a judicial district (1) in which any of the defendants reside, (2) in which a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred[, ]" or (3) if there is no district in which an action may be brought, any judicial district in which any ...