Abdul-Akbar v. Department of Corrections
| Citation | 910 F. Supp. 986 |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-801-RRM.,95-801-RRM. |
| Parties | Debro Siddiq ABDUL-AKBAR, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Rick Kearney, Avery Bowen, George Truitt, Sara McGee, David Elliot, Officer Mumford, Angus MacLennan, Karen Washington-Hall, David Andrews, Diane Ranger, and All Persons Acting in Concert With Them, Defendants. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware) |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Debro Siddiq Abdul-Akbar, pro se.
This is a civil rights case. Plaintiff is incarcerated at Sussex Correctional Institution ("SCI") located in Georgetown, Delaware. Defendants are various prison officials within the Delaware Department of Corrections ("DOC"). Plaintiff has filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Each is accompanied by a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
In plaintiff's complaints, he alleges that defendants have violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In addition, he alleges that defendants have violated certain federal and state laws. Because plaintiff's complaints contain similar legal and factual claims, and because plaintiff names the same defendants in a number of his complaints, the court will treat plaintiff's numerous submissions as a single complaint under § 1983 and a single petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This is the court's decision on plaintiff's complaint and petition.
On November 17, 1994, the court received plaintiff's first complaint. This first complaint names Karen Washington-Hall as defendant. Defendant Washington-Hall appears to be a counselor of the "Key Program," which is a drug abuse treatment and rehabilitation program operated by the DOC.
On November 30, 1994, the court received plaintiff's second complaint. This second compaint names Abdul-Akbar and "all similarly situated prisoners" as plaintiffs. The complaint names the DOC and Rick Kearney as defendants. Defendant Kearney appears to be the Warden at SCI. On January 11, 1995, the court received what appears to be an amendment to the second complaint.
On February 13, 1995, the court received plaintiff's third complaint and a "petition for a subpoena duces tecum." This third complaint names George Truitt, Sara McGee, and Rick Kearney as defendants. Defendants Truitt and McGee appear to be correctional officers at SCI. On February 17, 1995, the court received a "Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief and Restraining Order" that appears to relate to this third complaint. The court will construe the petition and the motion as amendments to plaintiff's third complaint because these documents contain additional allegations related to the same facts.
On March 27, 1995, the court received plaintiff's fourth complaint. This fourth complaint names David Elliot, Rick Kearney, Avery Bowen, and one Officer Mumford as defendants. Defendants Elliot and Mumford appear to be correctional officers at SCI. Defendant Bowen appears to be the Deputy Warden at SCI.
On May 4, 1995, the court received plaintiff's fifth complaint. This fifth complaint names Angus MacLennan, Rick Kearney, and "all persons acting in concert with them" as defendants. Defendant MacLennan appears to be a counselor at SCI.
On August 17, 1995, the court received plaintiff's sixth complaint. This sixth complaint names David Andrews and Diane Ranger as defendants. Defendant Andrews appears to be a law library aid at SCI. Defendant Ranger appears to be a paralegal at SCI.
On October 16, 1995, the court received a request from plaintiff that the court recuse itself from all of plaintiff's cases "due to the fact that the court is using its personal feelings to judge plaintiff instead of the law." In support of this contention, plaintiff alleges that the court has unreasonably delayed the disposition of his complaints.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Washington-Hall allowed relatives and friends into the Key Program while she denied plaintiff admission into the program. In a letter submitted along with plaintiff's complaint, Washington-Hall states that plaintiff was denied admission to the program because he did not meet the criteria for admission. Apparently, plaintiff's sentence did not "fall within the prescribed time frame" established for admission into the program. She also states that the program sometimes makes exceptions to the criteria for admission but that, at the time plaintiff applied, the program was "at capacity." She encouraged plaintiff to reapply for admission after 12 months had passed.
Plaintiff claims that Washington-Halls's alleged admission of friends and relatives into the Key Program while denying him admission violated his right to Equal Protection. He also claims that her actions constituted illegal racketeering. He apparently further claims that her refusal to allow him into the Key Program violates his right to Due Process because prisoners have a right under state law to "treatment and rehabilitation." Finally, he claims that Washington-Hall abused her discretion by denying him admission into the Key Program.
Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Washington-Hall's actions violated plaintiff's constitutional rights. He also seeks injunctive relief "barring defendant or anyone acting in concert with her from all forms of retaliation and from carrying out illegal practices," "stopping the defendant from barring plaintiff from treatment," and "granting plaintiff admittance in the program." He seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $1 million and punitive damages in the amount of $3 million. Finally, he seeks counseling for emotional stress, appointment of counsel, compensation of expenses, and "any and all actions deemed appropriate."
Plaintiff alleges that prison overcrowdedness has caused a number of problems at SCI. Prisoners are idle, stealing occurs more frequently, and stress and tension has increased. In addition, privacy has decreased, medical care has slowed, prisoners are sleeping on the floor, and people are housed together without considerations of compatibility. Plaintiff states that he has had to wait over 3 months for a hernia operation because SCI officials told him that other prisoners have more serious medical needs. In addition, he claims that he and 100 other prisoners are living in dormitories originally designed for about 20 prisoners, although he states later in the same document that 44 prisoners are living in that space. Apparently, plaintiff was later transferred to the Administrative Segregation and Detention Area ("ASDA"), where he alleges that 10 prisoners live in a space designed for 3.
Plaintiff further alleges that "earned good-time credits are not accessible to the majority of prisoners" because the DOC discriminates against "writ writers," who apparently are prisoners that make a substantial number of complaints about prison officials. Specifically, he claims that defendants select certain prisoners to be facilitators for prison programs, such as "Alternative to Violence," "Parenting," "Pre Release," "T.E.M.P.O.," "Computer Classes," and "Reshape and Lifer's Group," and that defendants allow these facilitators to select the participants of these programs. He alleges that these facilitators, with defendants' consent, deliberately refuse to select "writ writers." Apparently, prisoners can earn "good-time credits" through participation in these programs.
Plaintiff makes a number of additional claims. He alleges that his use of the law library has been restricted to 1 hour per day, 4 days a week. He alleges that the DOC has failed in its responsibility to provide rehabilitation to prisoners, including himself. Finally, he alleges that the noise level in the dormitory is too high.
Plaintiff's amendment to his second complaint alleges that various correctional officials at SCI have "started a system of retaliation and abuse against plaintiff for exercising his Federally Protected Constitutional Rights." He claims that in October, 1994, he sent some papers to an unspecified United States Court of Appeals. He further claims that the court dismissed his case for failing to receive the papers. He claims that on or about November 18, 1994, correctional officer Brenda Bursure (whom plaintiff does not name as a defendant) caused a package addressed to plaintiff to be returned to sender without notification to him as required by prison regulations. He claims that on or about December 28, 1994, he was screened for drugs because an informant "lied outright" about plaintiff smoking marijuana. Moreover, he claims that the drug screening was not random as is required by DOC regulations. He claims that on or about December 29, 1994, he was transferred to a medium security tier ("A Tier") that is allegedly used for prisoners that the staff members "don't like." He claims that residents of A Tier are denied jobs and other training; however, in an attached letter he states that 10 of the 48 residents are "actively involved in programs and educational classes." He claims that on January 4, 1995, correctional officer Frank O'Day (whom plaintiff does not name as a defendant) gave him a loaf of bread and then had another officer "write him up for it." Finally, he claims that on January 5, 1995, correctional officer Howard Fisher (whom plaintiff does not name as a defendant) transferred him to the ASDA and told him that he would "never get anything but hell if he didn't stop filing suits and complaints."
Plaintiff apparently claims that the conditions of confinement and access to medical care at SCI constitute Cruel and Unusual Punishment. He also claims that the library restrictions and the prison officials' allegedly retaliatory actions violate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indymac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. v. Reyad
... ... from the director of the Consumer Credit Division of the State of Connecticut Department of Banking stating the effective dates of her license; and (4) a letter purportedly from Wafa Reyad ... ...
-
Lewis v. Orleans Par. Sheriff's Office, CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-13939 SECTION "J" (2)
...measure of nutrition so as to support prisoner's Eight Amendment claim challenging conditions ofconfinement); Abdul-Akbar v. Dep't of Corrs., 910 F.Supp. 986, 1006 (D. Del. 1995), judgment aff'd 111 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1997) (prison officials did not violate the Eight Amendment where an inmat......
-
Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie
...of the Department of Corrections. Appellant has filed at least 180 civil rights or habeas corpus claims. Abdul-Akbar v. Dept. of Corrections, 910 F.Supp. 986, 998 (D. Del. 1995). In Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 901 F.2d 329 (3d Cir. 1990), this court reviewed a district court order barring Appell......
-
Yount v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections
...action does not advance legitimate penological goals. Commonwealth Court Order, 7/20/06, at 2 (citing Abdul-Akbar v. Department of Corrections, 910 F.Supp. 986 (D.Del.1995)). The court found appellant failed to meet these burdens of We initially note this Court's scope of review of an order......
-
RLUIPA at four: evaluating the success and constitutionality of RLUIPA'S prisoner provisions.
...American prisoner did not establish that possession of animal hides was "mandate[d]" by his faith); Abdul-Akbar v. Dep't of Corr., 910 F. Supp. 986, 1008 (D. Del. 1995) (dismissing RFRA claim because Muslim prisoner did not establish that wearing a kufi was "mandated by his religion"); Muha......