Lineberry v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

• Decision Date: 15 February 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 11–2056 (RMC).
• Citation: 923 F.Supp.2d 284
• Parties: Jed LINEBERRY, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

923 F.Supp.2d 284

Jed LINEBERRY, Plaintiff,

v.FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 11–2056 (RMC).

United States District Court,

District of Columbia.

Feb. 15, 2013.

Jed Lineberry, Texarkana, TX, pro se.

Rhonda Lisa Campbell, U.S. Department of Justice, Tricia Dianne Francis, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's [sic] Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. # 11].¹ For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

TRULINCS is the system by which prisoners in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) may correspond electronically and in writing with the public. See generally Mem. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss (“Defs.' Mem.”), Attach. B (Program Statement P5265.13, Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System (TRULINCS)—Electronic Messaging (Feb. 19, 2009)) (hereinafter “Program Statement 5265.13”). The stated program objectives are:

• To provide inmates with an alternative means of written communication with the public.

• To provide the [BOP] with a more efficient, cost-effective, and secure method of managing and monitoring inmate communication services.

• To reduce the opportunities for illegal drugs or contraband to be introduced into [BOP] facilities through inmate mail.

Program Statement 5265.13 at 1.

Generally, an inmate must “place a TRULINCS-generated mailing label on all outgoing postal mail,” and if he fails to do so, “the mail is returned to the inmate for proper preparation.” Id. at 5; see also Program Statement P5265.14, Correspondence (Apr. 5, 2011) at 7 (“[A]ll outgoing mail, for institutions with a TRULINCS-generated mailing label system, must utilize these mailing labels on all outgoing correspondence, in accordance with the Program Statement Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System (TRULINCS)—Electronic Messaging.”) (emphasis removed). An inmate using TRULINCS “must establish a contact list, which consists of people with whom [he wants] to communicate while [he is] incarcerated,” and upon confirmation from the potential recipients of inmate correspondence, “through use of the TRULINCS program, [the inmate] may communicate ... by way of electronic messaging and postal mail” with people on the approved contact list. Defs.' Reply to Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s Compl. (“Defs.' Reply”), Decl. of Rocky Patterson (“Patterson Decl.”) ¶ 2. In order to send “postal mail to a person on [his] contact list, the inmate must use the TRULINCS program to generate a mailing label,” a step designed “to ensure that contraband or illegal drugs are not smuggled into our prison facility through the use of other types of mailing labels.” Id., Patterson Decl. ¶ 2. If outgoing mail does not bear a TRULINCS-generated label, it “is intercepted through [the] mail sorting process and returned to” the inmate. Id. “Inmates who use mailing labels for other than their intended purpose may be subject to disciplinary action for misuse of Government property.” Program Statement 5265.13 at 5.

Plaintiff's “federal incarceration has taken away from him the means to have access to the postal service other than the institutional mail box system.” Compl. at 4. Now that use of TRULINCS is mandatory at the Federal Correctional Institution in Texarkana, Texas (“FCI Texarkana”), the facility in which Plaintiff currently is incarcerated, he must “apply to TRULINC[S]” for a mailing label, and “[i]f TRULINCS deems it appropriate, it will approve the request for access to postal service by providing a label.” Id. If TRULINCS does not approve the request, Plaintiff alleges, he is denied “access to the postal service.” Id. With the exception of “a few ... letters going to a court,” Plaintiff explains that “[e]very letter he has placed into the institutional mail has been returned to him.” Id. For example, he states that thrice he “attempted to send out mail to his father,” but the BOP allegedly “returned the letter [because] the outgoing mail did not have a mailing label approved by TRULINCS.” Id. at 6. Now Plaintiff “refuse[s] to apply to TRULINC[S] for permission in order to exercise his constitutional right[s]” under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Id. at 4. In addition, Plaintiff objects to “[t]he mandatory prior approval of a request in order to have access to the postal service, the possibility of [b]eing the access to the postal service as well as the limited number of labels and access to the one computer that services 1200 inmates, located in the law library, closed on all holidays, Sundays, for counts, staff meetings etc[.]” Id. at 8. For these alleged “blatant violation[s] of [his] First Amendment Right to have unrestricted access to ‘FREEDOM OF SPEECH’, FREEDOM ‘OF THE PRESS', to the ‘ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION’[,] protection for ‘FREE EXERCISE’ of religion, his right to ‘PEACEABL[E] ASSEMBL[Y]’ and his right to ‘PETITION’ the government,” id. at 3, Plaintiff demands injunctive relief, id. at 6; see id. at 12.²

Acknowledging that he must “complete the administrative remedy process before he request[s] assistance from the court,” id. at 8–9, Plaintiff submitted an informal inmate grievance to Mr. Hamilton, a counselor, who instructed Plaintiff to submit the request instead to Rocky Patterson, id. at 9, the Trust Fund Supervisor at FCI Texarkana, Patterson Decl. ¶ 1. Patterson's response merely referred to Program Statement 5265.13. Compl. at 9; see Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl.'s Opp'n”), Ex. (Inmate Request to Staff dated September 9, 2011). When Plaintiff attempted to file a formal inmate grievance, Mr. Hamilton allegedly “became hostal[sic] and refused” to give Plaintiff the proper form. Id. Plaintiff's attempts to submit his grievance to another counselor and to his Unit Manager were unsuccessful. Id. at 10. According to Plaintiff, any attempt by an inmate “to challenge any policy of the BOP” meets with resistance from BOP staff members who “will do everything in within their power to block the challenge as well as constantly harass, intimidate and persecute the inmate that questions” a policy. Id. at 9–10. And Plaintiff has acknowledged his failure to “request[ ] or attempt[ ] to file an administrative remedy for tort (for this claim),” id. at 11, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), see28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., to the BOP, see28 C.F.R. § 543.31.

II. DISCUSSION

A. This Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over Patterson In His Individual Capacity³

Plaintiff brings this action against Rocky Patterson in his individual capacity under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), under which he has “an implied private action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated [his] constitutional rights,” Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 66, 122 S.Ct. 515, 151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001).

Patterson does “not work or reside in the District of Columbia,” nor does he “have property interests in the District of Columbia.” Defs.' Reply, Patterson Decl. ¶ 3. His “duties as Trust Fund Supervisor do not cause [him] to transact business in the District of Columbia,” as these duties “are limited to serving the inmates” at FCI Texarkana.” Id. Patterson, then, is not “a person domiciled in, organized under the laws of, or maintaining [a] principal place of business in, the District of Columbia” over whom this Court may exercise jurisdiction. D.C. Code § 13–422. In order to determine whether the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over this nonresident defendant, the analysis begins by referencing the law of the District of Columbia, United States v. Ferrara, 54 F.3d 825, 828 (D.C.Cir.1995), specifically its long-arm statute which in relevant part provides:

A District of Columbia court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a claim for relief arising from the person's—

(1) transacting any business in the District of Columbia;

(2) contracting to supply services in the District of Columbia;

(3) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission in the District of Columbia; [or]

(4) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission outside the District of Columbia if he regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed, or services rendered, in the District of Columbia[.]

D.C. Code § 13–423(a). None of these provisions appear applicable. The Court must also consider “whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would comport with the requirements of due process.” Kurtz v. United States, 779 F.Supp.2d 50, 52 (D.D.C.2011) (citing GTE New Media Servs. Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343, 1347 (D.C.Cir.2000)). To this end, the Court examines whether Patterson's “minimum contacts” with the District of Columbia, if any, are such that “the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). If, for example, Patterson engages in conduct “by which [he] purposefully avails [himself] of the privilege of conducting activities” in the District of Columbia, “thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws,” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985), this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over him. See id.

At most Patterson has enforced at FCI Texarkana a policy which originated at BOP's Central Office in Washington, D.C. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 7–8. “[T]he mere enforcement of a regulation that was promulgated [in the District of Columbia] does not suffice to confer personal jurisdiction to a court in this district over [an] individual[ ] who [is] not...