Lanier v. Riley et al (INMATE1)

Filing 8

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint that this case be dismissed with prejudice as delusional in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). On or before May 3, 2006 the parties may file objections to this Recommendation. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 4/20/2006. (cb, )

Download PDF
Lanier v. Riley et al (INMATE1) Doc. 8 Case 2:06-cv-00353-WHA-DRB Document 8 Filed 04/20/2006 Page 1 of 4 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION R O G E R CHARLES LANIER, #220979, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C IV IL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-353-WHA [W O ] G O V E R N O R BOB RILEY, et al., Defendants. R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, Roger Charles Lanier ["Lanier"], a state inmate, a ss e rts that the Governor of Alabama, Bob Riley, the prison commissioner, Richard Allen, a n d various correctional officials have subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment as they h ave allowed "officers and inmates throughout the ADOC [to] attempt[] to murder plaintiff b y payoff" from a free-world source. Plaintiff's Complaint at 2-3. Lanier asserts that the a ttem p ts on his life have transpired since 2002 and have occurred at each correctional facility w ith in which he has been incarcerated. Id. U p o n review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of this case prior to service of process is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1 1. A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint screened in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires the court to dismiss a prisoner's civil action prior to service of process if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). 1 Case 2:06-cv-00353-WHA-DRB Document 8 Filed 04/20/2006 Page 2 of 4 D IS C U S S IO N La n ier complains that the defendants have failed to intervene on his behalf with re sp e c t to attempts made on his life in accordance with orders issued by a civilian drug lord. 2 H e further complains that the mental health staff forces him to take his prescribed m e d ic a tio n s and that "psychotropic meds were put in [his] food causing all kinds of physical p ains and [he] always was referred to mental health when the problem was [actually] a s e c u rity matter." Plaintiff's Complaint at 3. Finally, Lanier maintains that classification o fficials "releas[ed] classification matters to inmates and others," officers and inmates are "h o lding legal mail, reading privileged mail and drugging me to copy my legal notes . . . c o r r e s p o n d e n c e [is] copied and delayed phone calls recorded. Bugged on my person and view ed with camera while in cell performing bodily functions & while I file legal work." Id. This court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint "if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious." 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); see also, Neitzke 2. In Lanier v. Riley, et al., Case No. 2:06-CV-343-MEF, Lanier explains that "[t]here has been at least five attempts made on my life to murder me by inmates and officers who are being paid by a civilian to do so. . . . Members of the mental health staff, officers and inmates are putting prescribed medications such as antipsychotic , tranquilizers and psychotropic medications in my food, water and cups. This is being done to sadate me so that officers and inmates can search plaintiff's property. . . While plaintiff is sadated officers allow inmates to steal, destroy, view and read the plaintiff's personal property, letters, photos and cards. . . . Plaintiff's . . . mail are being read . . . outside plaintiff's view without any cause but to monitor and know what legal steps plaintiff may take. This is being done outside of regular prison policy by officers who are being paid to keep track and report my correspondence to the civilian that pays them. Plaintiff's phone calls are monitored and recorded for this civilian. Plaintiff has been transferred all over the State and the civilian is deeply rooted in the ADOC and travels with me as if he already knows where I will go next. . . . Plaintiff is ver y tired of this drug lord operating within the ADOC who has and is trying to kill the plaintiff.." Id. Plaintiff's Complaint/Motion for Temporary Restraining Order at 2-4. 2 2 Case 2:06-cv-00353-WHA-DRB Document 8 Filed 04/20/2006 Page 3 of 4 v . Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). 3 This section gives a federal district court "the u n u s u a l power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those c la im s whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. Examples o f such claims are those that describe "fantastic or delusional scenarios." Id. at 328. A fte r carefully reviewing this complaint, the court concludes, without hesitation, that the facts alleged by Lanier rise to the level of the irrational and reflect the ramblings of a tr o u b l e d and delusional individual.4 The allegations made by Lanier are a paradigm of those c la im s which should be subject to dismissal for frivolousness as they are truly fantastic and in c re d i b l e . In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that this complaint is due to be su m m arily dismissed pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Denton v H e rn a n d e z, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke, supra. CONCLUSION A c c o r d in gly , it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case b e dismissed with prejudice as delusional in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i) . It is further ORDERED that on or before May 3, 2006 the parties may file objections to this 3. Although Neitzke interpreted 28 U.S.C. 1915(d), the predecessor to 1915(e)(2), the analysis contained therein remains applicable to the directives of the present statute. 4. The factual recitation set forth by Lanier in the instant complaint is indicative of someone suffering from paranoia. 4 3 3 Case 2:06-cv-00353-WHA-DRB Document 8 Filed 04/20/2006 Page 4 of 4 R e c o m m e n d a tio n . Any objections filed must clearly identify the findings in the Magistrate J u d ge 's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive or general o b j e c t i o n s will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this R e c o m m e n d atio n is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M a gis tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the D is tric t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a tt a c k i n g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D istrict Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. W a in wr ig h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, e n banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e this 20 th day of April, 2006. /s / Delores R. Boyd D E LO R E S R. BOYD U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?