Biggins v. Danberg et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 1/5/2012. (lih)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CARL C. DANBERG, et aI.,
Defendants.

)

)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 10-732-GMS
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff, James Arthur Biggins ("Biggins"), an inmate at the James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center ("VCC), Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit on August 27,2010 followed
by an amended complaint on April 1, 2011. (D.I. 2, 7.) He proceeds pro se and has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 1 He has also filed a motion for show cause and a
motion/petition for relief, both construed by the court as motions seeking injunctive relief. (D.!.
9, 10.) The court now proceeds to review and screen the complaint and its amendment pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A.

I. BACKGROUND
Biggins filed the complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.c. § 1983, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, et seq., the
Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12133 and 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42
U.S.C. §2000, et seq., the Civil Rights ofInstitutionalized Persons Act, § 7(a), 42 U.S.C. §
1997e, and the Restatement (Second) of Torts, as well as supplemental State law claims. There

lBiggins has three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1915(g) but, because the complaint
alleged imminent danger of serious physical injury, he was not required to pay the full filing fee
at the time he filed the complaint. (See D.l. 6.)

are no allegations that Biggins is disabled and, therefore, the court does not consider the statutes
applicable to his claims. Biggins also refers to the section of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized
Persons Act that requires exhaustion of administrative remedies. Finally, the complaint refers to
a number of statutory citations without references to the particular act. Having reviewed the
complaint and its amendment, the court construes them as attempting to raise claims pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of Biggins' constitutional rights under the First, Eighth,
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as supplemental state law
claims. 2

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain in forma pauperis and
prisoner actions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (informapauperis
actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in which prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
defendant); 42 U.S.c. § 1997e (prisoner actions brought with respect to prison conditions). The
court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most
favorable to a pro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County ofAllegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008);

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,93 (2007). Because Biggins proceeds pro se, his pleading is
liberally construed and his complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94
(citations omitted).

2When bringing a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him
of a federal right, and that the person who caused the deprivation acted under color of state law.
Westv. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
-2­

Rule 8(d)(I) states, in pertinent part, that "[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise and
direct." Rule 20(1 )(a)(2), which is also applicable, states, in pertinent part, as follows:
Persons may ... be joined in one action as defendants if any right to relief is
asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or
arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences; and any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise
in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) (2)(A) and (B).
"In exercising its discretion [to join parties], the District Court must provide a reasoned
analysis that comports with the requirements of the Rule, and that is based on the specific fact
pattern presented by the plaintiffs and claims before the court." Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146,
157 (3d Cir. 2009); see also Boretsky v. Governor ofNew Jersey, No. 08-3313, 2011 WL
2036440 (3d Cir. May 25, 2011) (slip op.).

III. DISCUSSION
Biggins raises sixteen counts against eighty-four defendants in two documents that total
one hundred forty-four pages, including exhibits. 3 The original complaint contains Counts One
through Six, as follows: (1) Count One alleges unlawful conditions of confinement by reason of
unsanitary food service practices in Biggins' assigned housing unit; (2) Count Two alleges
unlawful conditions of confinement and deliberate indifference to medical needs by reason of
inadequate time for outside recreation and no physical therapy for over a year as ordered by
Biggins' physician; (3) Count Three alleges unlawful conditions of confinement due to
inadequate grooming practices consisting of one haircut per month and one shave per week;

3The original complaint named twenty-nine defendants and the amended complaint added
an additional fifty-five defendants. (See D.l. 2, 7.) Because Biggins misnumbered the
defendants, the amended complaint indicates, in error, that there are eighty-seven defendants.
-3­

(4) Count Four alleges denial of religious practices based upon the prison policy of including
religious books as one of the three general books allowed in an inmate's cell rather than counting
it separately; (S) Count Five alleges improper opening and reading of legal correspondence and
privileged mail; and (6) Count Six alleges improper taking of postage stamps on June 24, 2010,
that had been mailed to Biggins and were confiscated as "not permitted." (D.1. 2.)
The amended complaint adds Counts Seven through Sixteen, as follows: (1) Count
Seven raises a conditions of confinement4 claim for the past ten years and on numerous
occasions, by reason of food distribution on "uncertified multi-use (plastic) food servicing
products such as trays, sporks, lids, and cupsY; (2) Count Eight alleges unlawful conditions of
confinement while Biggins was housed in the VCC infirmary from July 4, 2010 through July 8,
2010; (3) Count Nine alleges deliberate indifference to medical needs on September 29,2010,
due to a policy change of no longer providing shoes on a medical basis unless the inmate is an
amputee or diabetic; (4) Count Ten alleges deliberate indifference to medical needs for delay in
replacing Biggins' dentures that were lost on June IS, 2009 and not replaced until April 10,
2010; (S) Count Eleven alleges deliberate indifference to medical needs during October through
December 2010 in prescribing ineffective pain medication, retaliating against Biggins for filing a
medical grievance by referring Biggins to mental health, and violating Biggins' right to privacy

4In many of the counts in the amended complaint, Biggins alleges denial of his right to
equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in addition to violations of the Eighth
Amendment.
SIn a prior a complaint, Biggins alleged that the use of food utensils, tray, and cups, not
made of non-corrosive materials, caused him to digest bacteria from corroded, dented and hard to
clean feeding products. The claim was dismissed as frivolous. See Biggins v. Markell, Civ. No.
09-24S-GMS at D.1. 12, ,-r III.B.).
-4­

by holding an open medical grievance hearing on November 3,2010; (6) Count Twelve seeks
reimbursement of all funds taken from Biggins' account "as an 'indigent' inmate for legal
postage fees"; (7) Count Thirteen alleges religious discrimination and invasion of privacy, since
August 17,2008, on the basis that "inmates are denied privacy with clergy"; (8) Count Fourteen
alleges unlawful conditions of confinement due to the prison telephone policy limiting telephone
use; (9) Count Fifteen alleges unlawful conditions of confinement during the past five years due
to lack of heat in extremely cold cells, weekly cold showers, insufficient blankets, and outside
recreation without hats, gloves, or coats; and (10) Count Sixteen alleges unlawful conditions of
confinement since 2007 due to "continuous housing structure, maintenance, and unsanitary
housing conditions" that jeopardize Biggins' health and safety, such as backed-up toilets,
improper cleaning supplies, dirty walkways, and improper cleaning by prison personne1.6 (D.I.
7.)
The complaint and its amendment contain many unrelated claims against numerous
defendants in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). Indeed, the complaint and its amendment are
clearly unmanageable and the eighty-four defendants would have great difficulty responding to it.
While joinder is encouraged for purposes ofjudicial economy, the "Federal Rules do not
contemplate joinder of different actions against different parties which present entirely different
factual and legal issues." Zhu v. Countrywide Realty Co., Inc., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1210, 1225 (D.
Kan. 2001) (citation omitted). Biggins asserts a whole host of completely unrelated claims such
as conditions of confinement, medical needs, religion, access to court mail/postage issues, and

6In a prior a complaint Biggins made similar conditions of confinement claims that was
dismissed as frivolous. See Biggins v. Danberg, Civ. No. 09-862-GMS at D.l. 22, ,-r rrl.F.).
-5­

retaliation. Most of the claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of
transactions or occurrences. Moreover, the claims do not involve issues of law or fact common
to all eighty-four defendants
In addition the complaint is deficiently pled. It consists of legal conclusions without
supporting facts and fails to meet the pleading requirements of Iqbal. See Ascroft v. Iqbal,
_U.S._, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). For example, Counts One through Five provide no time-frame
or facts alleging the personal involvement of each defendant. Counts Six through Sixteen, refer
to specific defendants but also name other defendants without including factual allegations
against them. The counts also raise claims against numerous supervisory personnel, and in
certain counts, refer to periods of time that are clearly barred by the applicable two-year
limitation period.
"The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), which substantially changed the
judicial treatment of civil rights actions by state and federal prisoners, also compels compliance
with Rule 20. Specifically, under the PLRA the full filing fee must ultimately be paid in a non­
habeas action. Allowing a prisoner to include a plethora of separate, independent claims, would
circumvent the filing fee requirements of the PLRA." Mincy v. Klem, Civ. No. 07-340,2007 WL
1576444, at *1 (M.D. Pa. May 30, 2007). See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,507 (7th Cir.
2007) ("The, "[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to
prevent the sort of morass that this [multiple]-claim, [multiple]-defendant suit produced but also
to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees."). See also Smith v. Kirby, 53 F. App'x 14,
16 (10th Cir. 2002) (not published) (finding no abuse of discretion where district court denied
leave to amend or supplement the complaint where the "new claims were not relevant to the

-6­

claims before that court...."). As a frequent filer, Biggins is well aware of pleading
requirements. Notably, Biggins has three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and, through
the years, has used different tactics in an effort to avoid payment of the entire filing fee when
filing a complaint.
Based upon the foregoing discussion, the complaint and its amendment will be dismissed
without prejudice as noncompliant with Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Biggins will be given an opportunity
to file an amended complaint. He is cautioned that the amended complaint must comply with
Rule 20 and involve only related claims or parties. Thus, to the extent that Biggins believes that
he has been subjected to more than one violation of his rights, and to the extent that these
violations are unrelated to each other, he should file separate complaints addressing each
violation along with separate motions to proceed in forma pauperis. "It must be a new pleading
which stands by itself as an adequate complaint without reference to the complaint already filed."
Young v. Keohane, 809 F.Supp. 1185 (M.D. Pa. 1992). As previously discussed, the court has
identified the following claims, almost all of them unrelated: conditions of confinement, medical
needs, religion, access to court mail/postage issues, and retaliation.
Biggins is warned that the inclusion of separate, unrelated claims will be considered a
failure to comply with this court's order and will result in dismissal of the complaint. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 20. In addition, the amended complaint or new complaints filed in compliance with

this order shall not include new claims. Finally, the failure to file an amended complaint within
the specified time period will result in dismissal of the action for failure to comply with an order
of court.

-7­

IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the court will deny without prejudice to renew Biggins' pending
motions. (D.1. 9, 10.) The court will also dismiss without prejudice the complaint and its
amendment for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Biggins will be given leave to amend.
An appropriate order will be entered.

--

_<..J_~~_~_ _, 201'Wilmington, Delaware

-8­