Doss v. Bureau of Prisons

• Decision Date: 08 October 2021
• Docket Number: Civil Action 4:19-CV-1789
• Parties: DARNELL DOSS, Plaintiff v. BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

1

DARNELL DOSS, Plaintiff
v.
BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-1789

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

October 8, 2021

RAMBO, D.J.

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION MOVING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS/FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (DOC. 25)

William I. Arbuckle, U.S. Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Federal inmate Darnell Doss (“Plaintiff”) claims that numerous BOP employees^[1] sought to prevent him from practicing his religion. His fifty-one (51) page complaint cover numerous incidents over a span of two years at two different federal prisons. His description of exactly what his religion is varies within the complaint, but in the caption, he types “Darnell Doss, Hebrew Israelite Nazarene” as the Plaintiff.

This complaint, about religious discrimination in federal prison, although typewritten, is difficult to interpret. In describing what he asked for to practice his religion and what was denied Plaintiff uses words that have different

2

meanings in different religions and does not define them.^[2] Additionally, on just one page of the complaint, he uses a variety of words and phrases to describe his religion.^[3] That said, the gist of his complaint is that his religion is practiced by black inmates but white inmates practicing similar religions are given preferential treatment. He claims that his attempts to rectify this discrimination were met with frustration and retaliation. Despite these difficulties we interpret his complaint in the light most favorable to him and proceed assuming at this stage that his stated religious beliefs and requirements are sincerely held if somewhat unclear.

Plaintiff alleges that, between 2018 and 2019 BOP employees at FCI Allenwood and FCI McKean interfered with his ability to practice his religion while incarcerated by denying and/or delaying the resolution of many of Plaintiff's requests for accommodations. Plaintiff asserts Bivens claims under the First and Fifth Amendments, claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), and claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986.

3

The seventeen names and served Defendants collectively have filed a Motion seeking dismissal, or in the alternative summary judgment, as to all of Plaintiff's claims. (Doc. 25). Since that Motion was filed, the Court has advised Plaintiff of his obligations to respond, granted Plaintiff several extensions of time, and has even (unsuccessfully) attempted to find volunteer counsel to represent Plaintiff. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the pending Motion.

For the reasons explained below, it is RECOMMENDED that:

(1) Plaintiff's entire Complaint be DISMISSED pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), for the failure to abide by Court orders or if the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not abandoned this case, in the alternative

(2) Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25) be GRANTED in PART to the extent it is consistent with this REPORT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25), dismissal/judgment should be GRANTED as to all claims EXCEPT Plaintiff's RFRA claims related to the symbols in the Allenwood Chapel, his request to wear a purple head covering, and his objection to the PPD type Tuberculosis test

II. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Procedural History

On October 17, 2019, federal inmate Darnell Doss (“Plaintiff”) lodged the Complaint in this case. In that Complaint, Plaintiff listed the following 26 Defendants (nineteen named Defendants, and 7 entries for “John Doe” Defendants):

4

(1) Bureau of Prisons;

(2) Chaplain Cusiluwsky (correctly spelled Cieslukowki) of Allenwood FCI;

(3) Chaplain Moore of Allenwood FCI;

(4) Chaplain Kim of Allenwood FCI;

(5) Chaplain Glogau of FCI McKean;

(6) Unit Manager Nicholas (Unit 2-A) of Allenwood FCI;

(7) Counselor Seagraves (correctly spelled Segraves) (Unit 2-A) of Allenwood FCI;

(8) Warden Spartan (correctly identified as Spaulding) of Allenwood FCI;

(9) Warden Lane of Allenwood FCI;

(10) AW Washington, AW of Programs of Allenwood FCI;

(11) Officer Brown Administrative Remedy Coordinator Allenwood Penn;

(12) Jane Doe 1, Administrative Remedies Clerk & Assistant Warden of Program's Secretary;

(13) SIS Lieutenant Ready (correctly spelled Reedy) of Allenwood FCI;

(14) SIS Lieutenant Pretezer of Allenwood FCI;

(15) SIS Lieutenant Kane (correctly spelled Cain) of Allenwood FCI;

(16) Lieutenant O'Connor of Allenwood FCI;

(17) Lieutenant Munchler (correctly spelled Mutchler) of Allenwood FCI;

(18) John Doe 2, Lieutenant of Allenwood FCI (Name Unknown);

(19) John Doe 3, Lieutenant of Allenwood FCI (Name Unknown);

(20) John Doe 4, Lieutenant of Allenwood FCI;

(21) D. Wolover (correctly spelled Wolever), Property Officer of Allenwood FCI;

(22) John Doe 5, Property Officer of Allenwood FCI;

(23) John Doe 6, Mail Room Officer of Allenwood FCI;

(24) Six Unknown Correction Officers of Allenwood FCI;

(25) Medical Staff Ms. Wright of FCI McKean; and

(26) Medical Staff ASP of FCI McKean.

5

(Doc. 1, p. 1).^[4] On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 6). On October 30, 2019, the Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deemed Plaintiff's Complaint filed, and directed the Clerk of Court to serve all Defendants. (Doc. 9).

Due to a clerical error in the Clerk's office, no waiver was sent to Defendant Asp. The Complaint list “Medical Staff Asp of FCI McKean as Defendant #26. However, Defendant Asp is not listed on the docket, has not been served, and the government has not responded on Asp's behalf. The Court discovered this error during its analysis of the Motion to Dismiss.

After being granted an extension of time to respond, fourteen Defendants returned a waiver of service (Cusiluwsky, Moore, Kim, Glogau, Nicholas, Seagraves, Lane, Washington, Brown, Ready, Kane, Munchler, Wolover, and Wright). (Doc. 14). Defendant Pretezer did not return a waiver of service, but did file a response to the Complaint. No proof of service was docketed as to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, but it also filed a response to the Complaint. Defendants Bureau of Prison and Pretezer do not appear to dispute that they have been properly served.

6

Two Defendants-Warden Spartan and Lt. O'Connor-could not be located at FCI Allenwood. (Doc. 15). On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff was asked to provide the correct name or address for these two Defendants. (Doc. 16). The named Defendant identified as “Warden Stephen Spartan” was later identified as “Warden Spaulding.” (Doc. 23). On March 17, 2020, Defendant Spaulding waived service. (Doc. 22). The Defendant identified as “Lieutenant O'Connor” has not been identified and has been treated as a “John Doe” Defendant. (Doc. 24, p. 4).

On May 18, 2020, the Seventeen named and served Defendants (Bureau of Prisons, Brown, Cusiluwsky, Glogau, Kane, Kim, Lane, Moore, Munchler, Nicholas, Pretezer, Ready, Seagraves, Spaulding, Washington, Wolover, and Wright - collectively “Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion seeking dismissal or in the alternative summary judgment. (Doc. 25). On June 1, 2020, Moving Defendants filed a Brief in Support (Doc. 26), Statement of Facts (Doc. 27), and Exhibits (Doc. 27-1).

The government's response^[5] generally alleges that Plaintiff's complaint, as written, fails to state any claim upon which relief can be granted.

7

On June 3, 2020, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to respond to Moving Defendants' Motion and advised him of the consequences of failing to respond. (Doc. 28).

On June 15, 2020, Plaintiff sought an extension of time to respond. (Doc. 29). On June 19, 2020, Plaintiff's request for more time was granted. (Doc. 30).

On August 14, 2020, Plaintiff sought an extension of time to respond. (Doc. 32). On August 21, 2020, Plaintiff's request for more time was granted. (Doc. 33).

On October 20, 2020, Plaintiff sought an extension of time to respond. (Doc. 34). On November 18, 2020, Plaintiff's request was granted. (Doc. 35).

On January 21, 2021, Plaintiff sought an extension of time to respond and requested the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 38). On March 4, 2021, Plaintiff's request for counsel was conditionally granted and the case was stayed for sixty days while the Pro Bono Committee attempted to find counsel to represent Plaintiff. (Doc. 39). On May 4, 2021, the Pro Bono Chair informed the Court that he could not locate a willing volunteer attorney or law firm to represent Plaintiff. (Doc. 40).

8

On June 10, 2021, the Court lifted the stay, issued an order directing Plaintiff to respond to Moving Defendants' Motion on or before July 12, 2021, and advised Plaintiff of the consequences of failing to respond. (Doc. 42). To date, the Court has not received a response to Moving Defendants' Motion.

B. Allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint

The substantive claims alleged by Plaintiff in his Complaint are laid out of 5 sections (A through E). Section A of the Complaint outlines the causes of action Plaintiff is attempting to allege. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Section B outlines Plaintiff's RFRA claims. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-22). Section C outlines Plaintiff's claims of “racial and religious discrimination, ” which I construe as his Fifth Amendment claims. (Doc. 1, pp. 22-27). Section D outlines Plaintiff's retaliation claims, which I construe as his First Amendment claims. (Doc. 1, pp. 27-30). Section E, in large part, outlines Plaintiff's “civil conspiracy” claims, which I construe as Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986. (Doc. 1, pp. 30-49). Section E also appears to assert an additional retaliation claim relating to an institutional transfer from...