HYMAN v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
Filing
5
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 12/29/2015. (drw)n.m.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
Randolph Levy Hyman,
Jr.,
CIV.
ACTION NO.
15-8149(RMB)
Plaintiff,
OPINION
V.
Michael Meisky,
Counselor,
Defendant.
U.S.
RENEE MARIE BtTh1B,
I.
District Judge
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff,
Jersey,
Agents
filed a
of
prisoner
a
civil
Federal
November 19,
moved from Room
FCI-Fort Dix.
FCI-Fort
action under
Bureau
2015,
in
of
Dix,
Bivens
Narcotics,
in
Dix,
New
Six Unknown Named
v.
403
Fort
U.S.
388
(1971)
on
seeking an injunction preventing him from being
107,
(ECF No.
first
1.)
floor,
Unit
5751
to
another room at
Plaintiff did not submit a filing fee
or an application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee
(in
forma pauperis “IFP” application), and this Court administratively
terminated the action.
IFP
application,
a
(ECF No. 2.)
proposed
Plaintiff has now submitted an
amendment
1
to
his
complaint,
and
he
renewed his request
moved
to
a
for an injunction prohibiting him from being
different
cell.
(ECF
application is properly certified
establishes
Court
his
will
application.
Nos.
by
this
matter
A prisoner must pay the
required
a
to
litigant
review
proceeds
the
frivolous or malicious;
may be granted;
who
immune
is
U.S.C.
II.
or
(3)
from
in
complaint
(2)
entire
official,
and
Therefore,
the
fee.
Plaintiff’s
filing fee,
28 U.S.C.
and
IF?
prison
grant
forma
Plaintiff’s
4.)
filing
and
the case is dismissed upon screening.
When
a
inability to pay the
reopen
3,
even
if
§ 1915(b) (2).
pauperis,
dismiss
IFP
it
the
if
court
it
is
is
(1)
fails to state a claim on which relief
seeks monetary relief against a defendant
such
relief.
28
U.S.C.
§
1915(e) (2) (3);
28
§ 1915A.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleged he was diagnosed with depression and severe
anxiety,
and
conditions.
is
presently
(ECF No.
1,
¶4.)
receiving
He
treatment
seeks to amend his
for
complaint
substitute Counselor Michael Meisky as the defendant.
at 1.)
floor
those
(ECF No.
to
3
Melsky informed Plaintiff that he had to give up his first
room because
he
did not
qualify for
it.
(ECF No.
1,
¶5.)
Plaintiff asserts the plan to move him into a twelve-inmate room
2
threatens his mental health because he cannot be around crowds of
people or noise.
(ECF No.
amending
BY
the
1,
¶6.)
complaint
to
substitute
Meisky
as
the
defendant, Plaintiff cured a deficiency in the original complaint;
the
named
defendants
constitutional
Plaintiff
lacked personal
violation.
has
not
However,
alleged
involvement
in
facts
his
in
amended
stating
an
alleged
complaint,
constitutional
a
violation.’
To state a claim of inadequate medical care in violation of
the
Eighth
Amendment,
medical need;
and
(2)
an
inmate
must
set
forth:
.
serious
a prison official’s deliberate indifference
to that serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble,
(1976)
a
(1)
429 U.S.
106
97,
Deliberate indifference is a reckless disregard of a known
risk of harm, negligent conduct does not meet the standard. Farmer
v. Brennan,
511 U.S.
Plaintiff
825,
alleged he
that requires treatment,
1,
¶4.)
836
See Goodrich v.
has
(1994)
a
diagnosed
serious
medical
depression and severe anxiety.
Clinton County Prison,
214 F.
need
(ECF No.
App’x 105,
Although Plaintiff should have filed an entirely new amended
complaint to replace the original complaint, the Court will
address the proposed amendments in Plaintiff’s self-styled
document “Amending Motion Requesting a Temporary Emergency,
Medical Injunction” together with his original complaint. (ECF
Nos. 1 and 3.)
3
111
as
(3d Cir.
(a mental illness diagnosed by a psychiatrist
2007)
requiring
treatment
constitutes
serious
a
medical
He
need.)
further alleged Counselor Melsky told him he did not qualify for
a first floor housing unit.
disagreement
with
Plaintiff’s allegation constitutes a
Counselor
Meisky’s
professional
judgment.
Disagreement with a professional medical opinion does not rise to
the level of a constitutional violation. See DeFranco v. Wolf,
F.
App’x
158-59
professionals
single-cell
celling,
(3d
Cir.
believed
and
2010)
the
others
case
(in
plaintiff
believed
where
should
there
was
be
no
some
387
medical
prescribed
harm
in
a
double
disagreement among doctors did not rise to the level of
deliberate
indifference)
constituting
deliberate
Plaintiff
.
does
not
to
his
indifference
allege
facts
anxiety
and
depression.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above,
filed
herewith,
Complaint
the
(ECF Nos.
1,
Court
3)
will
in the accompanying Opinion
dismiss
Plaintiff’s
Amended
without prejudice for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.
4
mb
RENEE MARIE BUNB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?