BUSSIE et al v. ANDREWS et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Plaintiffs' applications to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis are DENIED without prejudice. ORDERED Clerk shall terminate Taron Bussie as Plaintiff in this matter. ORDERED Clerk shall administratively termi nate this matter by making a new and separate entry on the docket reading, "ANTHONY BUSSIE'S IFP APPLICATION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. CIVIL CASE TERMINATED. ANTHONY BUSSIE MAY REOPEN THIS MATTER, IF HE ACTS DILIGENTLY UPON HIS RESTORAT ION TO COMPETENCY, PROVIDED THAT HE PREPAYS HIS FILING FEE OR SUBMITS HIS IFP, TOGETHER WITH HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT." ORDERED Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion and Order upon ANTHONY BUSSIE. ORDERED Clerk shall commence a new and separa te matter designating TARON BUSSIE as Plaintiff and JOHN DOE as Defendant. ORDERED cause of action is 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights and the Nature of Suit is 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights. ORDERED Clerk shall assign this newly commenced matter to the undersigned. ORDERED Clerk shall administratively terminate this newly commenced matter. ORDERED TARON BUSSIE may have this newly commenced matter reopened if he prepays the $400 filing fee or submits the IFP application with 30 days of the e ntry of this Order. ORDERED Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion and Order upon TARON BUSSIE at the following address: "TARON BUSSIE, SBI NO. 000761582C, FLETCHER HOUSE, 517 PENN STREET, CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY 08102" and include the following: a docket sheet from the newly commenced matter, a blank IFP application, and a blank complaint form. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 5/21/2014. (nz, )n.m.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
________________________________
:
ANTHONY BUSSIE et al.,
:
: Civil Action No. 14-3210 (RMB)
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
UNKNOWN CONGREESMAN
:
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, et al.,
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
:
AND ORDER
Defendants.
:
_______________________________________
:
BUMB, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court upon the Clerk’s receipt
of a civil complaint (“Complaint”) submitted by Anthony Bussie
(“Bussie”) without an application to proceed in this matter in
forma pauperis and without prepayment of filing fee.
Entry No. 1.
plaintiff.

See Docket

The Complaint names Taron Bussie (“Taron”) as co-

See id. at 1, 5 and 7 (indicating that Taron is

Bussie’s nephew).

Taron, being convicted of aggravated assault,

resisting arrest and controlled substance offenses, was sentenced
to a three-year residential community program, and is expected to
be released on December 24, 2014.

See https://www6.state.nj.us/

DOC_Inmate/results; see also http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/
SubSites/OCP/.

Being housed at Fletcher House, in Camden, New

Jersey, see id.; see also http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/

SubSites/OCP/OCP_RCRP_Information.html, Taron is not confined at
the facility where Bussie is housed and, correspondingly, might
be unaware of Bussie’s submission of the Complaint.

Moreover,

the Complaint bares only Bussie’s signature accompanied by a
notation reading, “Taron Bussie is inferior and fear[s]
government, or can’t trust NJ government.”

Docket Entry No. 1,

Since Taron’s in forma pauperis application is absent in

at 9.

Bussie’s submission, this Court cannot establish Taron’s interest
in litigating this case with any degree of certainty.
In contrast, Bussie’s interest in litigation is not in
question.

Bussie was indicted for knowingly and willfully

threatening to assault a Congressman.

See United States v.

Bussie, Crim. Action No. 12-0229, Docket Entry 14.

On April 18,

2012, this Court held Bussie’s § 4247(d) competency hearing.
id., Docket Entry No. 15.

See

During the hearing, both parties moved

for finding him incompetent to stand trial in light of the
conclusions reached by a forensic psychology expert who examined
him.

See id., Docket Entry No. 17.

This Court granted the

parties’ joint application and placed Bussie in temporary custody
See id.

so to restore him to competency.

As of now, Bussie is

in the process of being transferred to Butner Federal Medical
Center for treatment.1

See id., Docket Entry No. 34.

1

Meanwhile, he commenced numerous civil rights and § 2255
habeas actions. See, e.g., Bussie v. Evans, Civil Action No. 134316; Bussie v. United States, Civil Action No. 14-2307; Bussie
2

As the content of the Complaint and Bussie’s record in
United States v. Bussie, Crim. Action No. 12-0229, indicate, his
mental impediment greatly affects his litigation practices.

See

Hoffenberg v. Bumb, 446 F. App’x 394, 400, n.4 (3d Cir. N.J.
2011) (directing an examination of the “record before this Court
as to [the litigant’s] mental health [as a source of] explanation
for his actions in this proceeding, or in [his] other
proceedings”).

Since the Complaint arrived unaccompanied by

Bussie’s filing fee or his in forma pauperis application, the
Court will deny Bussie in forma pauperis status without
prejudice, and will direct the Clerk to administratively
terminate this matter, reserving Bussie’s opportunity to litigate

v. New Jersey, Civil Action No. 14-2719; Bussie v. United States,
Civil Action No. 14-2932; see also Bussie v. Bush, Civil Action
No. 09-6516; Bussie v. Bush, Civil Action No. 10-4555; Bussie v.
Bush, Civil Action No. 10-4594; Bussie v. United States, Civil
Action No. 11-0098; accord Conjured up Entertainment v. United
States, Civil Action No. 11-11475 (commenced on behalf of Bussie
and a juridical entity upon assertion that the United States owed
Bussie $55 million for intelligence he provided to President
Bush); Conjured up Entertainment v. United States, Civil Action
No. 11-1854 (same); Conjured up Entertainment v. United States,
Civil Action No. 11-2076 (same); Conjured up Entertainment v.
United States, Civil Action No. 11-2322 (same); Conjured up
Entertainment v. United States, Civil Action No. 11-2824 (same);
Conjured up Entertainment v. United States, Civil Action No. 112751 (same); Conjured up Entertainment v. Clinton, Civil Action
No. 12-1894 (same, as to President Clinton). His civil rights
claims have invariably been dismissed for failure to state a
claim and terminated until his restoration to competency, see,
e.g., Bussie v. New Jersey, Civil Action No. 14-2719, Docket
Entry No. 2, while his § 2255 claims have been dismissed as
premature. See Bussie v. United States, Civil Action No. 142932; Bussie v. United States, Civil Action No. 14-2307.
3

his challenges, if any, once he is restored to competency.

In

addition, mindful of Bussie’s naming Taron as co-plaintiff, this
Court finds it warranted to highlight to Bussie and Taron the key
deficiencies of the Complaint.

Bussie’s allegations and request

for relief indicate his interest in: (a) raising claims on behalf
of Taron; (b) challenging his and Taron’s prior convictions in
state forum; and (c) seeking his and Taron’s release from current
confinement.

See Instant Matter, Docket Entry No. 1, at 7-9.

However, Bussie cannot raise claims on behalf of Taron, since
nothing in the record suggests that Taron suffers of lack of
capacity to litigate on his own.
U.S. 149, 154-55 (1990).

See Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495

Analogously, requests for release

cannot be raised in a civil action, since an application for a
writ of habeas corpus is the sole avenue for seeking release or a
reduction in duration of confinement.
411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).

See Preiser v. Rodriguez,

Finally, an application for damages on

the basis of a prior conviction is necessarily premature until
that “conviction . . . has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal
authorized to make such determination, or called into question by
a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.”
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
IT IS, therefore, on this 21st day of May 2014,

4

Heck v.

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in this
matter in forma pauperis, if such were implied, are denied
without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall terminate Taron Bussie as
plaintiff in this matter; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively terminate this
matter by making a new and separate entry on the docket reading,
“ANTHONY BUSSIE’S IFP APPLICATION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
CIVIL CASE TERMINATED.

ANTHONY BUSSIE MAY REOPEN THIS MATTER, IF

HE ACTS DILIGENTLY UPON HIS RESTORATION TO COMPETENCY, PROVIDED
THAT HE PREPAYS HIS FILING FEE OR SUBMITS HIS IFP, TOGETHER WITH
HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT”; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion
and Order upon Anthony Bussie by regular U.S. mail; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall commence a new and separate
matter designating “Taron Bussie” as “Plaintiff,” “John Doe” as
“Defendant,” “Cause” as “42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights” and
“Nature of Suit” as “550 Prisoner: Civil Rights”; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall assign this newly commenced
matter to the undersigned; and it is further

5

ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively terminate this
newly commenced matter by making a separate entry on the docket
of that matter, reading, “CIVIL CASE TERMINATED”; and it is
further
ORDERED that Taron Bussie may have his newly commenced
matter reopened if he prepays his $400 filing fee or submits his
complete in forma pauperis application, together with his amended
complaint stating his own claims, provided that such submissions
are made within thirty days from the date of entry of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion
and Order upon Taron Bussie addressing it to, “Taron Bussie, SBI
No. 000761582C, Fletcher House, 517 Penn Street, Camden, New
Jersey 08102,” and include in said mailing: (a) the docket sheet
generated in the newly commenced matter; (b) a blank in
forma pauperis application for incarcerated individuals seeking
to commence a civil action; and (c) a blank civil complaint form.
Such service shall be executed by regular U.S. mail; and it is
finally
ORDERED that no statement made in this Memorandum Opinion
and Order shall be construed as expressing this Court’s position
that Plaintiffs’ amended complaints, if such are filed, would be
procedurally proper (or improper) or substantively meritorious
(or meritless).
6

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

7