Biron v. Carvajal
| Decision Date | 20 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 20-cv-2110 (WMW/ECW) |
| Parties | Lisa A. Biron, Plaintiff, v. Michael Carvajal, Director Federal Bureau of Prisons, sued in their official capacity, FCI Waseca Warden Mistelle Starr, sued in their official capacity, and Deanna Hiller, FCI Waseca Unit Manager; sued in her individual and official capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
ORDER & REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the United States' Motion to Screen and Stay Proceedings (Dkt. 7) (“Motion to Screen and Stay”), Plaintiff's Request for Expedited Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Dkt. 22) (“Motion for Preliminary Injunction”) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 31), Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (Dkt. 41), and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 52) (“Motion to Dismiss”). The case has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1. For the reasons stated below, the Court (1) recommends granting the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 52) and denying the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 22); (2) denies the Motion to Screen and Stay (Dkt. 7); (3) grants Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 31); and (4) grants Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (Dkt. 41).
Plaintiff Lisa Biron (“Plaintiff” or “Biron”) was sentenced in 2013 to serve a 480-month term of imprisonment to be followed by a lifetime term of supervised release and is now incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minnesota (“FCI-Waseca”). Biron v. Sawyer, No. 19-CV-2938 (SRN/LIB), Dkt. 67 at 3 (D. Minn. Aug. 21, 2020), R.&R. adopted, Dkt. 75 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2020).[2] (Dkt. 5 ¶¶ 2, 8.) Biron was formerly licensed to practice law in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Biron v. Sawyer, No. 19-CV-2938 (SRN/LIB), Dkt. 75 at 10.
Defendants are officials and employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”); Michael Carvajal is the Director of the BOP; Mistelle Starr is the Warden of FCI-Waseca; and Deanna Hiller is the Unit Manager of Biron's unit at FCI-Waseca. (Dkt. 5 ¶¶ 3-5; Dkt. 55 at 2.)[3] Carvajal and Starr are sued in their official capacities, and Hiller is sued in her individual and official capacities. (Dkt. 5 ¶¶ 6-7.)
This case came to Federal court when Defendants removed Biron's state-court complaint, which Defendants stated had been served but not filed, on October 5, 2020.[4] (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 1-2.) Briefly, Biron alleged in the Complaint that restrictions on access to a law library and typewriter imposed by Defendants due to the COVID-19 pandemic and denial of a specific request for access to a law library and typewriter in May 2020 resulted in denial of a motion for leave to amend filed in Biron v. Sawyer, No. 19-CV-2938 (SRN/LIB) (hereinafter “Biron v. Sawyer”). (Dkt. 1-2 ¶¶ 12-24.)
After this case was removed to this Court on October 5, 2020 (Dkt. 1), Biron filed[5] the Amended Complaint on October 14, 2020 (Dkt. 5). In the Amended Complaint, Biron first claims that each Defendant's failure to “allow” or “ensure Plaintiff meaningful, adequate, or reasonable access to the law library and typewriter interferes with Plaintiff's access to the court and prejudices Plaintiff's litigation in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” (Dkt. 5 ¶¶ 40-42.) Second, Biron claims that Carvajal's and Starr's failure to timely update the Electronic Law Library and to provide state law resources “interferes with Plaintiff's access to the court and prejudices her litigation in violation of the First Amendment.” (Id. ¶¶ 43-44.) Third, Biron claims that Carvajal's and Starr's failure to deliver her mail “because of the appearance of the exterior . . . and which contained legal information, interfered with Plaintiff's access to the court and prejudices her litigation in violation of the First Amendment and due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.” (Id. ¶ 45.) Fourth, Biron claims that the BOP's “Central Office's response condoning Defendants'” (1) “failure to provide reasonable access to an adequate law library and typewriter, ” (2) “failure to open and inspect all general correspondence, ” and (3) “return of unopened mail to the post office because of the exterior appearance of the envelope” constitutes final agency action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 704, and violates the BOP's “established regulations.” (Id. ¶¶ 46-50; see also ¶¶ 33-37 (citing C.F.R. sections).) Biron seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. (Id. ¶¶ 51-62.)
Biron is or has been involved in several court cases, some of which will be described in more detail in Section I.D. These cases include: “several active pro se appellate cases concerning her criminal conviction pending at the First Circuit Court of Appeals”; “a civil action pending against various FCI Waseca officials, including Defendant Hiller, in this Court (no. 19-cv-2938)”; and “family law litigation, and attorney discipline matters in New Hampshire and Massachusetts state courts.” (Dkt. 5 ¶¶ 9-12.) In addition to Biron v. Sawyer and the present case, Biron has brought claims against federal employees or officials in two additional cases that were litigated in this District: Biron v. Hurwitz, No. 19-cv-57 (SRN/LIB) (D. Minn. filed Jan. 9, 2019), and Biron v. Barnes, No. 19-cv-898 (SRN/LIB) (D. Minn. filed Apr. 1, 2019).
In Biron v. Hurwitz, Biron v. Sawyer, and the present case, Biron captioned the complaints as state court suits in Waseca County, Minnesota. No. 19-cv-57 (SRN/LIB), Dkt. 1-2 (D. Minn. Jan. 9, 2019); No. 19-cv-2938 (SRN/LIB), Dkt. 1-2 (D. Minn. Nov. 20, 2019). According to Defendants, Biron served but did not file her state-court complaints, which allowed her to avoid paying a civil filing fee.[6] (Dkt. 8 at 2, 6 (citations omitted); Dkt. 55 at 4 (citations omitted).) Defendants assert that avoiding paying a filing fee was the purpose of serving unfiled complaints. (Dkt. 8 at 2, 6.) In support of this assertion, Defendants cite an email[7] Biron sent to FCI-Waseca officials on April 10, 2020, responding to their denial of her request for email access to communicate with family and stating, Biron, however, states that she mailed each complaint for filing in Waseca County court, but each was returned to her by the Waseca County Court Administrator due to lack of jurisdiction or proper venue. (Dkt. 21 ¶¶ 10, 15-16, 19-20 ().) Biron states that in each case, she attempted to file the complaint in state court “because [she is] indigent and under Minnesota law could seek [in forma pauperis (“IFP”)] status and qualify for a waiver of the filing fee, ” and that she “was fully prepared to litigate” in state court, but the defendants removed each case to federal court. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13, 17-18, 21-22.) Defendants removed each of these three cases to Federal court in this District. Biron v. Hurwitz, No. 19-cv-57 (SRN/LIB), Dkt. 1 (D. Minn. Jan. 9, 2019); Biron v. Sawyer, Dkt. 1 (D. Minn. Nov. 20, 2019). (Dkt. 1 (Oct. 5, 2020).)[8]
As will be described further, many of Biron's allegations and claims in this case relate to the proceedings in Biron v. Sawyer. As background, Biron claimed in Biron v. Sawyer that the BOP and FCI-Waseca were prohibiting her from having contact with her daughter in violation of the Constitution and sought injunctive relief requiring them “to stop interfering” with Biron and her daughter's right to communicate with each other. Biron v. Sawyer, Dkt. 1-2 (Nov. 20, 2019). The following events relevant to this action occurred in Biron v. Sawyer after it was removed to Federal court on November 20, 2019:
Biron filed motions to join her daughter as a plaintiff, Dkt. 8 (D Minn. Nov. 25, 2019), Dkt. 9 (D. Minn. Dec. 2, 2019); a Motion for Emergency Injunction / Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt. 10 (Dec. 4, 2019); and a Verified Motion for Summary Judgment and for Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. 27 (Jan. 1, 2020). The defendants (which included Hiller and the then-current Director of the BOP and the Warden of FCI-Waseca) were given an extension of time to file a consolidated response to Biron's motions for joinder and Motion for Emergency Injunction / Temporary Restraining Order. Dkt. 14 (Dec. 6, 2019). Biron responded to the defendants' request for extension of time (though her response was not received and docketed by the court until after the extension had already been granted), clarifying that her motion was for emergency relief, not a preliminary injunction, and stating that once she and her daughter received the emergency relief of being able to communicate with each other, “they intend to move for a preliminary injunction . . ., as well as file an amended complaint adding claims for damages.” Dkt. 15 (Dec. 16, 2019).[9] In addition to Biron's motions, the defendants filed a motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial