Bumpas v. Corr. Corp. of America, 3:10-1055
| Decision Date | 30 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | NO. 3:10-1055,3:10-1055 |
| Parties | DARRELL W. BUMPAS v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
By Order entered January 19, 2011 (Docket Entry No. 21), this prisoner civil rights action was referred to the Magistrate Judge to enter a scheduling order for the management of the case, to dispose or recommend disposition of any pretrial motions under 28 U.S.C . § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and to conduct further proceedings, if necessary, under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Court.
As set out below, the Court recommends that most of the claims and all but one of the defendants in this action be dismissed from the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
The pro se plaintiff, an inmate currently confined at the Davidson County Criminal Justice Center ("CJC"), filed a 23 page complaint naming at least 25 defendants, and 86 pages of attachments. See Docket Entry Nos. 1-2. The plaintiff asserts civil rights claims based oncircumstances and events occurring during his incarceration at the Metro/Davidson County Detention Facility ("MDCDF") in 2000 and 2010. By Order entered November 15, 2010 (Docket Entry No. 3), he was granted in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 but was ordered to revise the statement of his claims by providing a short and plain statement setting forth with particularity the factual allegations supporting his claims. The plaintiff thereafter filed a motion (Docket Entry No. 19) to amend his complaint, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint setting out 17 categories of claims and naming 45 defendants.
By Order entered January 19, 2011 (Docket Entry No. 21), the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend, reviewed the amended complaint (Docket Entry No. 25), and found that, while the plaintiff's assertions were often delusional in nature, the amended complaint contained some claims which were not facially frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and directed the Clerk to send to the plaintiff blank service packets for the defendants and to issue process to the defendants upon the return of completed service packets. On February 3, 2011, the Clerk issued process to the 45 defendants named in the amended complaint. See Docket Entry No. 31.
Because of the nature of the plaintiff's allegations, the sheer number of defendants involved, and the fact that process for many of the defendants had been returned unexecuted, the Court, by Order issued March 8, 2011 (Docket Entry No. 115), provided that a further review of the plaintiff's claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), would take place prior to any served defendant being required to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint and prior to the reissuance of process to any defendant for whom process was returned unexecuted. The Court took under advisement the plaintiff's motion (Docket Entry No. 47) to have three additional service packets sent to him, the plaintiff's motion (Docket Entry No. 86) to have 36 additional servicepackets sent to him and to have process re-issued on these 36 service packets, and the motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 91) filed by Defendant Mark Fishburn.
Subsequent to or shortly prior to the Order of March 8, 2011, several motions were filed by some of the other defendants in the action:
By contemporaneously entered order, the above motions have been denied as moot with leave to be re-filed if this report and recommendation is not adopted.
Also before the Court are 19 motions filed by the plaintiff shortly prior to the Order of March 8, 2011, or thereafter until June 30, 2011. These motions are addressed in the contemporaneously entered order, and include:
In addition to filing the above noted motions, the plaintiff has filed no less than 83 "notices," "emergency notices," "affidavits," "statuses," "reports," or "statements." See Docket Entry Nos. 88, 99-100, 112, 137, 139, 141-157, 162-165, 167-171, 173, 175-176, 178-182, 184-185, 190-193, 197, 199, 203-209, 212-216, 219-240, and 242-243. The plaintiff's cumulative filings number in the hundreds of pages and chronicle his observations of and involvement in the manner of his incarceration and the actions of prison officials and other entities. The Court is unable to summarize these filings, and the content and nature of the specific filings can only be gleaned from an attempt to read them, but the caption of one of the filings is set out as a representative example:
NOTICE: "The Defendants Are "Necromancers" If my body is physically alive. And my god-given spirit or "Ka" is responding by avatars and pleadings in the defendants computer monitors (modern crystal balls) then who's spirits and "Ka" is still responding and also pleading (searching for the light without rest) for the 6,000 year old dead victims also still being monitored by the defendants and grieved and made empty promises?
See Docket Entry No. 228, at 1.
Given the volume and nature of the plaintiff's filings, the Court entered an Order July 5, 2011 (Docket Entry No. 244), directing that the plaintiff make no further filings in the case until the Court has had an opportunity to review his claims, as set forth in the Order of March 8, 2011, and address the other issues currently pending before the Court in the case. Since the Order of July 5, 2011, the plaintiff has filed a change of address notice (Docket Entry No. 247), and the docket in the action reflects only one attempted filing which was returned to the plaintiff on July 13, 2011.
Even though the Court determined that the amended complaint was sufficient to survive preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it contained some claims that were notfacially frivolous, the issue of whether the plaintiff, who proceeds in forma pauperis, has alleged claims which are subject to dismissal under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) or (iii) is a separate issue. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) provides that:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that -
. . .
A claim is frivolous when the claim "lacks an arguable basis in law or fact." See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact if it contains factual allegations that are fantastic or delusional, or if it is based on legal theories that are indisputably meritless. Id. at 327-28; Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 2000); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198-99 (6th Cir. 1990). To state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the plaintiff must provide the grounds for his entitlement to relief, and this "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (abrogating Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957...
To continue reading
Request your trial