HARRISON v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 10/23/2017. (rtm, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
JONATHAN HARRISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civ. Action No. 17-4296 (RMB)
OPINION
BUMB, District Judge:
Plaintiff Jonathan Harrison, a prisoner incarcerated in FCI
Fort Dix, in Fort Dix, New Jersey, filed this civil action under
the Federal Tort Claims Act on June 13, 2017.
1.)
(Compl., ECF No.
Plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of fees (“in
forma pauperis”
or “IFP”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
(IFP
No.
App.,
ECF
1-2.)
His
application
establishes
his
financial eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis.
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) require courts to
review a prisoner’s complaint in a civil action and sua sponte
dismiss any claims that are (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fail
to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court will permit the
complaint to proceed against the United States of America.
I.
Sua Sponte Dismissal
Courts must liberally construe pleadings that are filed pro
se.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
however
inartfully
standards
than
pleaded,
formal
must
pleadings
be
se
pleadings
are
charged
held
drafted
(internal quotation marks omitted).
pro
Thus, “a pro se complaint,
to
by
‘less
stringent
lawyers.’”
Id.
“Court personnel reviewing
with
the
responsibility
of
deciphering why the submission was filed, what the litigant is
seeking, and what claims she may be making.”
See Higgs v. Atty.
Gen. of the U.S., 655 F.3d 333, 339-40 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting
Jonathan D. Rosenbloom, Exploring Methods to Improve Management
and Fairness in Pro Se Cases: A Study of the Pro Se Docket in
the Southern District of New York, 30 Fordham Urb. L.J. 305, 308
(2002)).
Under
28
U.S.C.
§
1915(e)(2)(B),
district
courts
must
review complaints filed by persons proceeding in forma pauperis
in civil actions, and dismiss any claim that is frivolous or
malicious,
fails
to
state
a
claim
upon
which
relief
may
be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
A pleading must contain a “short and plain
2
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556
Atlantic
U.S.
662,
Twombly,
550
plausibility
allows
the
678
U.S.
when
(2009)
544,
the
court
to
(quoting
570
(2007)).
plaintiff
draw
Bell
the
“A
pleads
claim
factual
reasonable
Corp.
has
facial
content
inference
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
v.
that
that
the
Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.)
“[A]
court
must
accept
contained in a complaint[.]”
as
true
Id.
all
of
the
allegations
Legal conclusions, together
with threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
do
not
suffice
to
considering
a
identifying
pleadings
state
motion
to
a
claim.
dismiss
that,
because
Id.
can
Thus,
choose
they
are
to
no
“a
begin
more
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.”
at 679.
court
by
than
Id.
“While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a
complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.”
Id.
If a complaint can be remedied by an amendment, a district court
may not dismiss the complaint with prejudice, but must permit
the amendment.
Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d 103,
108 (3d Cir. 2002).
3
II.
DISCUSSSION
Plaintiff
asserts
jurisdiction
Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).
under
the
Federal
Tort
(Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶1.)
Plaintiff alleges he filed an administrative tort claim with the
Federal Bureau of Prisons on June 15, 2016, and it was denied on
January 3, 2017.
(Id., ¶2.)
The defendants are the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, Dr. Debra Spotts, Jay Miller, J. Reid, S.
Sholder,
the
United
States
of
America,
Bradley, Mr. Perkins, and Dr. McKenzie.
Dr.
Estos,
Regina
(Compl., ECF No. 1,
¶¶1-3, 5f-g.)
The Court accepts the following factual allegations as true
for
the
purpose
of
screening
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).
examined
by
Dr.
Jay
the
Complaint
pursuant
to
§§
On June 25, 2010, Plaintiff was
Miller
and
Allenwood Correctional Facility.
Dr.
Leonard
Weber
at
FCC
(Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶5a-c.)
Dr. Miller diagnosed Plaintiff with an enlarged optical nerve.
(Id.)
No report was generated indicating that Plaintiff needed
a retina examination.
In
2014,
(Id., ¶5c.)
Plaintiff
suffered
vision
loss,
and
examined by an optometrist at FCI Estill, South Carolina.
¶5d.)
denied.
Plaintiff’s
request
(Id., ¶5e.)
to
see
a
retina
he
was
(Id.,
specialist
was
Plaintiff alleges Dr. Jay Miller, Dr.
Debra Spotts, Dr. Estos, and J. Reid were negligent in providing
medical care.
(Id., ¶5f.)
Plaintiff further alleges Defendants
4
Regina Bradley, Mr. Perkins, and Dr. McKenzie were negligent in
failing
to
diagnose
his
condition.
requests money damages for relief.
(Id.,
¶5g.)
Plaintiff
(Id., ¶6.)
The only proper defendant to an FTCA claim is the United
States
of
America.
Therefore,
the
Court
will
dismiss
the
Federal Bureau of Prisons and the federal employees from this
action.
The FTCA claim against the United States of America
will be allowed to proceed.
III. VENUE
Although
Plaintiff
is
presently
confined
in
New
Jersey,
none of the alleged misconduct occurred in New Jersey.
This
raises the issue of whether New Jersey is the most convenient
venue for this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides:
For
the
convenience
of
parties
and
witnesses, in the interest of justice, a
district court may transfer any civil action
to any other district or division where it
might have been brought or to any district
or division to which all parties have
consented.
An FTCA claim “may be prosecuted only in the judicial district
where
the
plaintiff
resides
complained of occurred.”
alleged
negligence
wherein
the
act
28 U.S.C. § 1402(b).
occurred
Estill, South Carolina.1
or
in
Allenwood,
or
omission
All of the
Pennsylvania
and
Therefore, the Court will require the
1
It is not clear from the Complaint where each of the medical
professionals who are accused of negligence treated Plaintiff.
5
parties to show cause why the case should not be transferred to
the United States District Court, District of South Carolina or
the
United
States
District
Court,
Middle
District
of
Pennsylvania.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Complaint may proceed
against the United States of America as the sole defendant.
The
remaining
The
defendants
are
terminated
from
this
action.
parties shall show cause why the case should not be transferred
to the United States District Court, District of South Carolina,
or
the
United
States
District
Court,
Middle
District
Pennsylvania.
An appropriate order follows.
DATE:
October 23, 2017
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
6
of
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?