Crum v. Young

Decision Date18 May 2021
Docket NumberCivil Action 5:20-00655
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
PartiesDAVID HALL CRUM, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN D.L. YOUNG, et al., Defendants.

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OMAR J. ABOULHOSN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On October 7, 2020, Plaintiff, acting pro se and incarcerated at FCI Beckley, filed his Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and a Complaint claiming entitlement to relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 24 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).[1] (Document Nos. 1 and 2.) By Order enter on October 8, 2020, the undersigned directed Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to specifically set forth his constitutional claims and state specific facts as to how each defendant violated his rights. (Document No. 6.) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was filed on November 2 2020. (Document No. 10.) In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff named the following as Defendants: (1) Warden D.L. Young; (2) Case Manager Jim Craddock; (3) Supervisor Case Manager Ms O'Dell; and (4) Unit Manager Ms. Stimpson. (Id.) Plaintiff complains that “D.L. Young allowed the Case Management, Coordinator's Office through Ms. O'Dell and/or other workers in that Office to directly retaliate against Plaintiff for a habeas corpus filing against one of their friends about 15 years ago at this institution (a Mr. Michael Snow).” (Id.) In support, Plaintiff alleges that “Ms. O'Dell and her party intentionally falsified documents placing the Plaintiff here at Beckley illegally depriving him of pre-release status and placing his life in danger because there were no medical records that followed.” (Id.) Plaintiff concludes that “Mr. Craddock and Ms. Stimpson supported this.” (Id.) Plaintiff requests monetary relief. (Id., p. 5.)

As Exhibits, Plaintiff attaches the following: (1) A copy of Plaintiff's Sentence Monitoring Computation Data As of 12-11-2019 (Id., p. 5.); (2) A copy of Plaintiff's Memorandum stating that pursuant to his Reentry Program, he should be placed at FCI Petersburg closer to his release area (Id., p. 7.); and (3) A copy of Plaintiff's “Individual Reentry Plan - Program Review” dated June 25, 2020 (Id., pp. 8 - 9.).

On January 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Motion for a Temporary Federal Injunction and a Mandatory Updated Docketing Statement.” (Document No. 11.) Plaintiff complains that his legal mail is being held for two weeks. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff requests that the Court prevent “tampering with the legal mail.” (Id.)

On February 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed additional Exhibits in support of his Complaint: (1) A copy of a “Rejection Notice - Administrative Remedy” dated February 2, 2021, from the Administrative Remedy Coordinator with the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office regarding Remedy ID No. 1067312-R1 (Document No. 15, p. 3.); (2) A copy of Plaintiff's Custody Classification Form dated January 6, 2021 (Id., p. 4.); and (3) A copy of the contact information for Assistant United States Attorney Patricia McBride (Id., p. 5.).

THE STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to screen each case in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, and must dismiss the case if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a similar screening is conducted where a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. This screening is done prior to consideration of an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, and notwithstanding the payment of any filing fee. On screening, the Court must recommend dismissal of the case if the complaint is frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A “frivolous” complaint is one which is based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992). A “frivolous” claim lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831 - 32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id., 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833. A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact when it describes “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id., 490 U.S. at 327 - 328, 109 S.Ct. at 1833. A complaint therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted factually when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. With these standards in mind, the Court will assess Plaintiff's allegations in view of applicable law.

This Court is required to liberally construe pro se documents, holding them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d 1291, 1295 (1978). Liberal construction, however, “does not require courts to construct arguments or theories for a pro se plaintiff because this would place a court in the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” Miller v. Jack, 2007 WL 2050409, at * 3 (N.D.W.Va. 2007)(citing Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.1978)). Further, liberal construction does not require the courts to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). In other words, a court may not construct legal argument for a plaintiff. Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir.1993). Finally, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Department of Social Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir.1990)). Where a pro se Complaint can be remedied by an amendment, however, the District Court may not dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, but must permit the amendment. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1734, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992); also see Goode v. Central Va. Legal Aide Society, Inc., 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015).

DISCUSSION
1. Bivens:

A Bivens action is a judicially created damages remedy which is designed to vindicate violations of constitutional rights by federal actors. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 395 -97, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971); See also Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980)(extending Bivens to Eighth Amendment claims); Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 239 n. 18, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 2274 n. 18, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979)(extending Bivens to allow citizen's recovery of damages resulting from a federal agent's violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.) A Bivens action is the federal counterpart of an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. An action for money damages may be brought against federal agents acting under the color of their authority for injuries caused by their unconstitutional conduct. Proof of causation between the official's conduct and the alleged injury is necessary for there to be liability. A plaintiff asserting a claim under Bivens must show the violation of a valid constitutional right by a person acting under color of federal law. However, Bivens claims are not actionable against the United States, federal agencies, or public officials acting in their official capacities. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 484-86, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994); Berger v. Pierce, 933 F.2d 393, 397 (6th Cir. 1991); Reingold v. Evers, 187 F.3d 348, 355 n. 7 (4th Cir. 1999).

A. Retaliation:

Plaintiff appears to argue that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by retaliating against Plaintiff for pursuing a lawsuit against a BOP employee. (Document No. 10.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Defendants have improperly caused Plaintiff to be incarcerated at FCI Beckley instead of FCI Petersburg. (Id.) As stated above, a Bivens action is a judicially created damages remedy which is designed to vindicate violations of constitutional rights by federal actors. See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 395 -97, 91 S.Ct. at 1999. Bivens core premise is to deter individual officers' unconstitutional acts. Correctional Services Corp v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 122 S.Ct. 515, 151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001)(declining to extend Bivens to confer a right of action for damages against private entities acting under the color of federal law). In Bivens, the Supreme Court first recognized that a victim of a Fourth Amendment violation by federal officers may bring suit for money damages against the officers in federal court. Bivens, 403 U.S. at 396, 91 S.Ct. 1999. In the years following the decision in Bivens, the Supreme Court recognized an implied damages remedy under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979), and the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100, S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980). Since Carlson, the Supreme Court has consistently refused to extend Bivens liability to any new context or new category of defendants. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. at 484-86, 114 S.Ct. 996 (declined to extend Bivens to permit suit against a federal agency); Holly v. Scott, 434 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2006)(declining to extend Bivens to an Eighth Amendment claim against employees of a privately operated prison); Lebron v. Rumsfeld, 670 F.3d 540 (...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT