WEIGMAN v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al

Filing 7

OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 4/26/16. (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
___________________________________
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., :
:
Defendants.
:
___________________________________:
MATTHEW WEIGMAN,

Civ. No. 15-8454 (NLH)
OPINION

APPEARANCES:
Matthew Weigman, # 26937-038
F.C.I. Fort Dix
P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, NJ 08640
Plaintiff Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
On or about December 2, 2015, Plaintiff Matthew Weigman, a
prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Fort Dix, New Jersey, filed this civil rights action asserting
claims pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29
L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). (ECF No. 1).

This case was previously

administratively terminated due to Plaintiff’s failure to
satisfy the filing fee requirement. (ECF No. 3).

On or about

January 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed an in forma pauperis
application (ECF No. 4) and the case was reopened for review by
a judicial officer.

On February 8, 2016, this Court granted

Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 6).
At this time the Court must review the instant Complaint to
determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or
malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in
forma pauperis 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).

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Federal

Bureau of Prisons will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as a
defendant; however the remainder of the Complaint will be
permitted to PROCEED.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims of retaliation
for “exercise[ing] his First Amendment right to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.” (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1).
He names as defendants: (1) the Federal Bureau of Prisons; (2)
Correctional Counselor Derek Hamel; (2) Correctional Counselor
Mark Holterman; and (4) Correctional Counselor Karlton Byrd.
At this time, the Court will not dismiss the claims of the
Complaint as a result of its sua sponte screening.

However,

Plaintiff may not bring a Bivens claim against the Federal
Bureau of Prisons. See Ruiz v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 481 F.
2

App'x 738, 740 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Corr. Servs. Corp. v.
Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 71, 122 S. Ct. 515, 151 L. Ed. 2d 456
(2001)) (explaining that Bivens claims may be brought only
against individual federal officers, not the United States or
the Bureau of Prisons).
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Federal Bureau of
Prisons will be dismissed with prejudice.

The claims of the

Complaint are permitted to proceed against the remaining
defendants at this time.
An appropriate Order follows.

___s/ Noel L. Hillman_____
NOEL L. HILLMAN
United States District Judge

Dated: April 26, 2016
At Camden, New Jersey

3