Maldonado v. Carvajal
| Decision Date | 04 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 5:21-00514 |
| Parties | GARCIA FELIZ MALDONADO, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL D. CARVAJAL, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
On September 13, 2021, Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed his Complaint in this matter 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 No. 1.) Plaintiff names the following as Defendants: (1) Michael D. Carvajal Director of Bureau of Prisons; (2) J.C. Petrucc, Regional Director; (3) D.L. Young, Warden of FCI Beckley; and (4) J Ball, Case Manager at FCI Beckley.[2] (Id., pp. 2 - 3.) First, Pliantiff complains that he was improperly transferred to a higher security level institution (FCI Beckley). (Id., pp. 6 - 7.) Plaintiff explains that in March 2021, Defendant Carvajal had “Plaintiff transferred from Moshannon Valley Correctional Facility, a low security prison located in Pennsylvania, to FCI Beckley, a high restricted security prison.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he has discussed with Defendants Carvajal Petrucc, Young, and Ball, to no avail, his transfer back to a low security level prison. (Id.) Plaintiff explains that he has “5 security points” and “Beckley FCI houses inmates with 15 up to 27 security points based upon their history of violence or their violent offenses.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he “faces a substantial risk of harm because his security points (5) require that he be in a low level prison facility with less dangerous prisoners.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are acting with deliberate indifference to his safety by failing to transfer him to a lower security level prison. (Id.)
Second, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ball subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary and excessive force in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights on August 17, 2021. (Id., p. 7.) Plaintiff explains that during an office visit, Defendant Ball threw Plaintiff against the wall, slammed Plaintiff's head against the wall, and choked Plaintiff to the point that he gasped for air. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that he suffered “extreme pain” as a result of Defendant Ball's actions. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ball's use of unnecessary force was the result of Plaintiff's attempt to file an administrative remedy against Defendant Ball about his transfer to a low security level prison. (Id.)
Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Carvajal, Petrucc, and Young are acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's health and safety by denying him “well balanced daily meals containing sufficient nutritional value.” (Id., pp. 7 - 8.) Plaintiff alleges that he is at a substantial risk of serious harm because “the food from the kitchen daily is spoiled [and so] nutritionally deficient that it is effecting Plaintiff's health conditions.” (Id.) Plaintiff requests monetary and injunctive relief. (Id., p. 9.)
In support of his Complaint, Plaintiff attaches a copy of Affidavits from Inmates Michael Rankins and Tyrone Cross. (Document Nos. 2 and 3.) In Inmate Rankins' Affidavit, Inmate Rankins states that he witnessed J. Ball use unnecessary force upon Plaintiff on August 17, 2021. (Document No. 2.) Specifically, Inmate Rankins states that J. Ball slammed Plaintiff to the wall and began choking Plaintiff. (Id.) Finally, Inmate Rankins states that meals from the kitchen are “not well balanced daily meals containing sufficient nutritional value to preserve my health [and] the food from the kitchen is spoiled.” (Id.) In Inmate Cross' Affidavit, Inmate Cross states that he witnessed J. Ball choke Plaintiff and slam his head into the wall. (Document No. 3.) Inmate Cross states that this (Id.)
On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs. (Document No. 6.)
On December 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed his “Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction and Preliminary Hearing.” (Document No. 7.) Pliantiff again complains that in March 2021, Defendant Carvajal had “Plaintiff transferred from Moshannon Valley Correctional Facility, a low security prison located in Pennsylvania, to FCI Beckley, a high restricted security prison that stays on institutional lockdowns for fights and violence.” (Id.) Plaintiff explains that he has “five (5) security points” and he “is housed at FCI Beckley with inmates with 16 to 27 security points based upon their history of violence or their violent offenses.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he “faces a substantial risk of harm because his security points (5) require that he should have stayed housed in a low security facility with less dangerous prisoners and less prison restrictions.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he is likely to succeed upon the merits because “Defendants violated Plaintiff's due process and Eighth Amendment rights to the United States Constitution when they had him transferred from Moshannon Valley facility to Beckley FCI, a high restricted prison for medium custody inmates.” (Id.) Next, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ball subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary and excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.) Plaintiff concludes that he will likely suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not issue a preliminary injunction. (Id.)
Plaintiff claims he “is a vulnerable inmate and is at risk of irreparable harm by other inmates who are violent by their security points 16 to 27 security points.” (Id.) Plaintiff concludes that the threat of harm he faces outweighs any harm that the preliminary injunction will cause to Defendants and the preliminary injunction will serve the public interest. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff requests that this Court issue a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to transfer Plaintiff back to a low security level prison. (Id.)
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).
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....
To continue reading
Request your trial