BACON v. DR. MANDELL et al
Filing
10
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 11/14/2013. (eaj)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. MANDELL et al.,
Defendants.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANNE KLEIN FORENSIC CENTER,
Defendant.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTIE TODD WHITMAN,
Defendant.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALEX DAVIS,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 10-5506 (JAP)
OPINION
APPLIES TO ALL ACTIONS
Civil Action No. 12-0841 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-0842 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-0843 (JAP)
continued . . .
. . . continued
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMESBURG DETENTION HOME,
Defendant.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES FORSYTHE #43618,
Defendant.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. ROBERT ROTH,
Defendant.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. B. MARTY,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 12-0844 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-0845 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-2778 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-2779 (JAP)
continued . . .
. . . continued
:
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
:
ATLANTIC CITY POLICE,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
:
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
:
MR. JOHN MANE et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
:
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
:
ANNE KLEIN FORENSIC CENTER et al., :
:
Defendants.
:
:
:
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
:
THOMAS KAZANES et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
Civil Action No. 12-2883 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-3055 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-3056 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-3169 (JAP)
continued . . .
. . . continued
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
RASHON JOHNSON,
Defendant.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
M.S.O. SYLVESTER,
Defendant.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRENTON STATE PRISON,
Defendant.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALL MEDICAL STAFF et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 12-3170 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-3217 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-3272 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-3273 (JAP)
continued . . .
. . . continued
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALL REHAB STAFF et al.,
Defendants.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOCTORS SUPERVISORS et al.,
Defendants.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALL MSO'S AND SR MSO'S et al.,
Defendants.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
KITCHEN SUPERVISORS et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 12-3274 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-3390 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-3391 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-3392 (JAP)
continued . . .
. . . continued
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALL KITCHEN STAFF et al.,
Defendants.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SR. M.S.O. LOPEZ,
Defendant.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Defendant.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ATLANTIC CITY PRESS,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 12-3393 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-3479 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-3494 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-3575 (JAP)
continued . . .
. . . continued
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SURVEILLANCE SECURITY,
Defendant.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALL DOCTORS et al.,
Defendants.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALL TREATMENT TEAMS et al.,
Defendants.
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE ATLANTIC CITY PRESS,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 12-3580 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-3694 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-4341 (JAP)
Civil Action No. 12-4511 (JAP)
continued . . .
. . . continued
JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUPERVISOR 1ST 2ND 3RD SHIFT
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 12-5230 (JAP)
OPINION
APPLIES TO ALL ACTIONS
PISANO, District Judge:
These twenty-nine matters are before the Court upon Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s
prior order directing him to show cause as to why he shall remain the master of his claims and no
special counsel should be appointed. The Court has received and reviewed the submissions from
Plaintiff. The Court has also carefully reviewed the record of the proceedings in each of
Plaintiff’s cases filed in this district discussed herein. For the reasons below, Plaintiff may file an
amended complaint in the matter of Bacon v. Atlantic City Police, Civil Action No. 12-2883 to
provide the necessary factual details to support his claim, after which the Court will make a
determination of this individual civil action should proceed and whether pro bono counsel should
be appointed. All remaining matters are dismissed.
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
Bacon v. Burns: Plaintiff’s Initial Complaint
Plaintiff is a civilly committed individual who commenced his first case in this District on
October 22, 2010. See Bacon v. Burns (“Bacon v. Burns”), Civil Action No. 10-5484 (JBS)
(D.N.J. Oct 22, 2010). There, the original complaint and amended pleading, both executed pro
se, alleged that, during a certain period of Plaintiff’s confinement, his rights were violated when he
was subjected to involuntary medication with Haldol, an antipsychotic drug. See Bacon v. Burns,
Docket Entry No. 1. This matter has recently settled. Id., Docket Entry No. 72 (settlement
placed on record).
B.
Action Duplicative of Bacon v. Burns Assigned to the Undersigned
In addition to Bacon v. Burns, Plaintiff commenced a number of other civil matters in this
District; three of these matters were presided over by Judge Simandle, see Bacon v. Atlantic
County Police Dep’t, Civil Action No. 13-2216 (JBS); Bacon v. Dupree, Civil Action No. 12-0784
Page 1 of 22
(JBS); Bacon v. Adetunji, Civil Action No. 11-0706 (JBS), while the remaining Plaintiff’s matters
were assigned to the undersigned and present the actions being adjudicated now.
One the matters before the undersigned was Bacon v. Mandell, Civil Action No. 10-5506;
it was commenced on October 25, 2010. There, Plaintiff asserted that his rights were violated by
the same chain of involuntary medications that Plaintiff had already alleged in Bacon v. Burns.
The Court, therefore, directed administrative termination of Bacon v. Mandell as duplicative. See
id., Docket Entry No. 2.
C.
Other Matters Presided Over by Judge Simandle
As noted, in addition to Bacon v. Burns, Judge Simandle presided over three other of
Plaintiff’s actions. On February 8, 2011, Plaintiff commenced two of these three actions by
submitting civil complaints asserting, again, that his rights were violated by the same chain of
involuntary medications referenced in earlier actions. See Bacon v. Adetunji and Bacon v.
Dupree. Since the complaints in these two actions were deficient for the reasons already
articulated by this Court in Bacon v. Mandell, Judge Simandle directed termination of Bacon v.
Adetunji and Bacon v. Dupree as duplicative. See Civil Action No. 11-0706, Docket Entry No. 2;
Bacon v. Dupree, Docket Entry No. 2, at 5-7, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27699 at *6-7. The third
action, Bacon v. Atlantic County Police Dep’t, was also dismissed as duplicative based on a
finding that the complaint was substantively identical to that filed in Bacon v. Atlantic City Police,
Civil Action No. 12-2883 (JAP) (D.N.J. May 8, 2012),. See Civil Action No. 13-2216, Docket
Entry No. 2.
Page 2 of 22
D.
Other Bacon’s Matters Assigned to the Undersigned
1.
Cases Commenced at the Beginning of 2012
During the first few months of 2012, Plaintiff commenced five matters, specifically: Bacon
v. Anne Klein Forensic Center (“Bacon v. AKFC”), Civil Action No. 12-0841; Bacon v. Whitman,
Civil Action No. 12-0842; Bacon v. Davis, Civil Action No. 12-0843; Bacon v. Jamesburg
Detention Home for Boys (“Bacon v. Jamesburg”), Civil Action No. 12-0844; and Bacon v.
Forsythe, Civil Action No. 12-0845.
In Bacon v. AKFC, Plaintiff asserted that he was “falsely convicted of crime and put in
double jeopardy”; he sought release from confinement and monetary damages in the amount of 8
“billion dollars.” The Court determined that his application for monetary relief was facially
premature under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and his request for release was subject
to dismissal for lack of habeas jurisdiction.
In Bacon v. Whitman, Plaintiff alleged that “Christie Todd Whitman” violated his rights by
“endanger[ing] the welfare of a child” through “put[ting] criminal charges on a child”; in
connection with this allegation, Plaintiff sought “88 zillion dollars.” The Court dismissed
Plaintiff’s challenges for lack of factual predicate or for failure to state a claim. 7
7
The Court presumed that Plaintiff's reference to “Christie Todd Whitman” was a reference to
Christine Todd Whitman (“Governor Whitman”), that is, New Jersey 50th Governor who served
her term between 1994 and 2001. Having no legal degree, Governor Whitman did not serve as a
prosecutor or even a defense counsel and, thus, could not have been involved in any malicious
prosecution action. The Court observed:
[Plaintiff’s] claim implicate[d] Governor Whitman only in her supervisory
capacity, as the State’s top administrative official. That claim [was] facially
meritless, since [Plaintiff’s] challenges based on solely on the respondeat superior
theory [were] not cognizable under Section 1983.
Bacon v. Anne Klein Forensic Ctr., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71018, at *11-12 (citations omitted).
Page 3 of 22
In Bacon v. Davis, Plaintiff alleged that a certain “Alex Davis” violated his state law rights
by injecting Plaintiff with Haldol in accord with Dr. Burn’s orders; in connection with that
assertion, Plaintiff maintained that he was allergic to Haldol and sought “2 billion dollars.” This
Court dismissed the complaints for lack of diversity jurisdiction (necessary to support a state-law
medical malpractice claim) and as barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
In Bacon v. Jamesburg, Plaintiff named “Jamesburg Detention Home for Boys” as the sole
defendant and asserted that it “[d]id not treat for crime with facts of finding and brought no legal
law[]yers for child”; in connection with that assertion, Plaintiff sought “one million eight hundred
thousand dollars.” Id. The Court dismissed these challenges on numerous grounds. 9
Finally, in Bacon v. Forsythe, Plaintiff alleged that a certain “Forsythe,” apparently an
inmate, violated Plaintiff's rights because Forsythe “lied . . . about a crime” during Forsythe’s
testimony before a certain judge; in connection with this allegation Plaintiff sought “1.28 billion
dollars.” The Court dismissed these challenges noting that witnesses were absolutely immune
from civil suit for damages based upon their testimony. However, each of the aforesaid
dismissals was without prejudice, and Plaintiff was allowed to amend all these pleadings.
2.
Subsequent Cases
Shortly after initiating the above-summarized matters, Plaintiff commenced a series of
additional civil actions, one after the other. These matters are briefly summarized as follows:
9
First, a detention center is not a “person” within the meaning of a § 1983 suit.
Furthermore, even if this Court were to presume that Plaintiff wished to name
facility staff (rather than the facility itself) as Defendant, the facility staff – being
employees of a place of confinement – had no duty to obtain, and no role in
obtaining, legal representation for Plaintiff. Finally, even presuming that Plaintiff
merely wished to assert that he was wrongfully convicted or civilly committed, his
claims would be barred by Heck on the grounds already articulated by this Court
with regard to Bacon v. AKFC, as his challenges would be premature.
Bacon v. Anne Klein Forensic Ctr., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71018, at *14-15 (citations omitted).
Page 4 of 22
In Bacon v. Roth, Civil Action No. 12-2778, Plaintiff asserted, once again, that he was
unduly subjected to forced medication. In Bacon v. Marty, Civil Action No. 12-2779, he alleged
that a certain “Dr. Marty” was “neglecting” him by not responding to his phone calls and by
promising him to keep “neglecting” Plaintiff’s future calls placed to “Dr. Marty’s hospital.” In
Bacon v. Atlantic City Police, Civil Action No. 12-2883, Plaintiff asserted “police brutality,
excessive force and attempted murder.” In Bacon v. Mane, Civil Action No. 12-3055, he alleged
that a certain Mr. Mane, who allegedly “runs Anne Klein Forensic Center,” violated Plaintiff’s
rights because Mr. Mane “told his officers to violate [Plaintiff’s] freedom of speech [since
Plaintiff] couldn’t say what [he] wanted to say.” In Bacon v. Anne Klein Forensic Center, Civil
Action No. 12-3056, Plaintiff asserted that “all staff” of the Anne Klein Forensic Center
(specifically, the first, second and third shifts of the staff) violated “all [his] rights.” In Bacon v.
Kazanes, Civil Action No. 12-3169, Plaintiff alleged that a patient held in the Anne Klein Forensic
Center, “assaulted” Plaintiff “with [a] book.” In Bacon v. Johnson, Civil Action No. 12-3170,
Plaintiff asserted that a certain Mr. Johnson, a “client”, “assaulted [Plaintiff] with closed fist.” In
Bacon v. M.S.O. Sylvester, Civil Action No. 12-3069, Plaintiff alleged that a certain Officer
Sylvester made “terroristic threats” by telling Plaintiff, during an “October” of an unspecified
year, that Officer Sylvester would “get [Plaintiff] hurt.” In Bacon v. Trenton State Prison, Civil
Action No. 12-3272, Plaintiff asserted that the prison violated his rights by having Plaintiff
confined in an unspecified “laboratory testing facility against [Plaintiff’s] will.” In Bacon v. All
Medical Staff, Civil Action No. 12-3273, Plaintiff alleged that an unspecified medical staff
“violated patient bill of rights illegally and disrespectfully.” In Bacon v. All Rehab Staff, Civil
Action No. 12-3274, Plaintiff asserted that “all rehab staff” violated his rights because they failed
to “rehabilitate” him. In Bacon v. Doctors Supervisors, Civil Action No. 12-3390, Plaintiff
Page 5 of 22
alleged that certain unspecified “Doctors Supervisors” violated his rights by failing to cure him.
In Bacon v. All M.S.O’s, Civil Action No. 12-3391, Plaintiff asserted that “all M.S.O’s”
“disrespected and violated” his unspecified rights. In Bacon v. Kitchen Supervisors, Civil Action
No. 12-3392, Plaintiff alleged that unspecified “Kitchen Supervisors” violated his rights because
they “did not help to prepare food.” In Bacon v. Kitchen Supervisors, Civil Action No. 12-3393,
Plaintiff asserted that these “Kitchen Supervisors” also violated his rights because they “did not
feed [him the] right meal[s].” In Bacon v. M.S.O. Lopez, Civil Action No. 12-3479, Plaintiff
alleged that a certain M.S.O. Lopez violated his rights because M.S.O. Lopez “assaulted [an
unknown] patient with [a] minor infraction” causing that patient the “need [for] needles in [his]
body.” In Bacon v. State of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 12-3494, Plaintiff asserted that the
State violated his rights by failing to release him from confinement or to move him to a certain
camp. In Bacon v. Atlantic City Press, Civil Action No. 12-3575, Plaintiff alleged that a local
newspaper violated his rights because it “put a juvenile in jeopardy” by “put[ting that] juvenile[’s]
name in the paper.” In Bacon v. Surveillance Security, Civil Action No. 12-3580, Plaintiff
asserted that a certain “surveillance security” should have had but “d[id]n’t have cameras in every
camp,” and that violated Plaintiff’s rights. In Bacon v. All Doctors, Civil Action No. 12-3694,
Plaintiff alleged that unspecified doctors “treated [Plaintiff] irrespo[n]sibl[]y” by violating
Plaintiff’s “patient[’s] bill of rights.” In Bacon v. All Treatment Teams, Civil Action No.
12-4341, Plaintiff asserted that “treatment teams . . . did not notify [unspecified whom in order] to
help” with an unspecified issue. In Bacon v. Atlantic City Press, Civil Action No. 12-4511,
Plaintiff repeated his challenges stated in the first Bacon v. Atlantic City Press action. In Bacon v.
[Anne Klein Forensic Center] Supervisors [of] 1st [and] 2nd [and] 3rd Shift, Civil Action No.
Page 6 of 22
12-5230, Plaintiff asserted that unspecified “supervisors” violated his rights because they “were
suppose[d] to help [Plaintiff] stay safe.”
In connection with this panoply of challenges, Plaintiff sought damages in varied amounts
ranging from “one million” to “one billion” to “eight billion,” to “eighty eight billion” to “one
trillion” dollars. See Bacon v. Mandell, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132231, at *5-28 (setting forth
the same facts and remedy demands in greater detail and citing relevant docket entries).
II.
THE COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Previously, all of the above-captioned actions were dismissed without prejudice, and the
Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause as to why he should remain the master of his
claims, even at the pleading stage. See, e.g., Bacon v. Mandell, Docket Entry No. 8. The Court
did so out of an abundance of caution in light of Plaintiff’s diagnosed mental health issues (as
noted in the Court’s Opinion accompanying the Order to Show Cause). Under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 17(c)(2), “[t]he court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another
appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.”
A court should consider whether Rule 17(c) applies when “presented with evidence from an
appropriate court of record or a relevant public agency indicating that the party had been
adjudicated incompetent, or if the court receive[s] verifiable evidence from a mental health
professional demonstrating that the party is being or has been treated for mental illness of the type
that would render him or her legally incompetent.” Powell v. Symons, 680 F.3d 301, 307 (3d Cir.
2012). A sua sponte review of a plaintiff’s mental competence by the court is not necessitated
“based on a litigant's bizarre behavior alone, even if such behavior may suggest mental
incapacity.” Id. (citations omitted). The decision whether to appoint a guardian ad litem rests
with the sound discretion of the district court. Powell, 680 F.3d at 303.
Page 7 of 22
The Court has reviewed all of the supplemental submissions by Plaintiff. The Court also
has thoroughly reviewed the record of each of the proceedings pending before both the
undersigned and before Judge Simandle. The Court is satisfied that no further Rule 17 review is
required. In the recently concluded matter before Judge Simandle, for example, Plaintiff
appeared to be active in the litigation and able to assist his counsel. See, e.g., Civil No. 10-5484,
Docket Entry No. 72 (examination of Plaintiff by counsel shows that counsel and Plaintiff
reviewed terms of settlement together, Plaintiff understood the terms of the settlement, and
Plaintiff understood his rights being given up in exchange for settlement payment). Having
considered the entirety of the record of each of the proceedings of Plaintiff’s various civil actions,
the Court finds no basis to find that Plaintiff is incompetent for the purposes of Rule 17. The
Court, therefore, proceeds with the review of Plaintiff’s civil actions and with ruling on Plaintiff’s
requests for counsel.
III.
ANALYSIS
Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) “authorizes the dismissal of a[n IFP action] as factually frivolous
if a court determines that the contentions are clearly baseless.” Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d
1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995). “[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts
alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992). However, no dismissal of allegations as “fanciful,” “fantastic” or “delusional” is
made lightly, since the courts never “disregard the age-old insight that many allegations might be
‘strange, but true; for truth is always strange, [s]tranger than fiction.’” Id. (citation omitted).
Unless an allegation facially qualifies as “clearly baseless,” the court screens a pleading
under the Rule 8 standard by “accept[ing] as true all of the [factual] allegations in the complaint.”
Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). Yet, bald assertions or
Page 8 of 22
legal conclusions are not credited as true. See Burlington Coat Fact. Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410,
1429 (3d Cir. 1997). Rather, the test detailed in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007),
is applied. Detailing that test, the Court of Appeals in Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d
224, 230-34 (3d Cir. 2008), observed:
“[w]hile a complaint . . . does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s
obligation [is] to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ . . . .”
Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1964-65 . . .”[T]he threshold requirement of Rule 8(a)(2)
[is] that the ‘plain statement [must] possess enough heft to ‘sho[w] that the pleader
is entitled to relief.’” Id. at 1966. [Hence] “factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 1965 & n.3.
Id. at 230-34 (original brackets removed); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 687-87 (2009);
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009); accord Imoore v. Gasbarro,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73114, at *16 (D.N.J. May 24, 2012) (citing Advanta Corp. Sec. Litig., 180
F.3d 525, 534 (3d Cir. 1999), which quoted DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir.
1990), “for the observation that a pleading must indicate ‘the who, what, when, where, and how:
the first paragraph of any newspaper story’”).
If a civil litigant has a plausible claim but no meaningful ability to litigate it, the litigant
might seek appointment of pro bono counsel, even though civil litigants have no constitutional
right to legal representation. See Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997) (the
court may appoint counsel to represent a litigant who proceeds in forma pauperis under §
1915(e)(1), if the claim advanced has “some merit in fact and law.” Parham, 126 F.3d at 457); see
also Bragg v. Agarwal, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109090 (D.N.J. Nov. 23, 2009). In appointing pro
bono counsel under Section 1915(e)(1), the courts consider various factors, such as the litigant’s
ability to present his case, the complexity of the legal issues implicated, the likelihood of extensive
or complex discovery, the need for experts, etc. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1993)).
Page 9 of 22
However, first and foremost, the district court considers whether an indigent plaintiff raises
a discernible claim from which at least an arguable merit could be distilled. See Tabron, 6 F.3d at
156 (“[T]he district court must consider as a threshold matter the merits of the plaintiff's claim.
‘Before the court is justified in exercising its discretion in favor of appointment, it must first
appear that the claim has some merit in [both] fact and law’”) (quoting, inter alia, Maclin v.
Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887 (7th Cir. 1981), which, in turn, quoted Spears v. United States, 266 F.
Supp. 22, 25-26 (S.D.W. Va. 1967)); accord Powell v. Symons, 680 F.3d 301, 310 n. 9 (3d Cir.
2012) (“Tabron repudiated” the notion that “appointment of counsel is warranted only upon a
showing of special circumstances indicating the likelihood of substantial prejudice to plaintiff
resulting from plaintiff's probable inability without such assistance to present the facts and legal
issues to the court in a complex but arguably meritorious case”) (quoting Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155,
internal quotation marks omitted, emphasis supplied). Simply put, the presence of a discernible
claim is a necessary requirement for appointing counsel. See Tabron, 6 F.3d at 156; Maclin, 650
F.2d at 887; Spears, 266 F. Supp. At 25-26; cf. Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 2013 U.S. LEXIS
4701, at *26 (June 24, 2013) (“[The] scrutiny must not be ‘strict in theory, but fatal in fact.’ But
the opposite is also true. [The] scrutiny must not be strict in theory but feeble in fact”) (citations
omitted).13
13
The Iqbal Court clarified that “[t]he plausibility standard is not akin to a probability
requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted, emphasis supplied). Thus,
Iqbal set the pleading requirement bar at the mid-level plausibility benchmark, clarifying that
“plausibility” is less than “probability” but more than sheer “possibility,” and hammered “the final
nail-in-the-coffin for the ‘no set of facts’ standard that applied to federal complaints before
Twombly.” Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210 (referring to the standard coined in Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). While Rule 17 analysis cannot turn on the plausibility test, see Powell,
680 F.3d at 307-08, and even the pre-Twombly possibility standard set forth in Conley cannot be
utilized as dispositive for the purposes of Rule 17 review, see id, a claim raised by a mentally
incompetent individual cannot warrant appointment of counsel if the claim is set forth in the terms
Page 10 of 22
The Court addresses each of Plaintiff’s actions in turn below:
a.
In Bacon v. Mandell Plaintiff initially raised the forced medication challenges duplicative
of those currently litigated in Bacon v. Burns. In response to the Court’s previous Order,
Plaintiff submitted a response reading, “Dr. Mandell forced me to stay in lock up until of
going [illegible] to an asylum.” Bacon v. Mandell, Docket Entry No. 9, at 1. While
qualitatively different from Plaintiff’s initial challenges, that statement did not offer the
Court even a hint at a viable claim, since the placement in solitary confinement or a special
unit cannot violate the rights of inmates. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 480 (1995)
(relying on Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983)); Griffin v. Vaughn, 112 F.3d 703,
706 (3d Cir. 1997) (relying on Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484); Enigwe v. Nugent, No. 92-5339,
1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4860 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 25, 1993). Rather, Plaintiff’s submission
suggested his displeasure with a certain memory he retained. Thus, it appears that, if
counsel is appointed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff would insist on that counsel’s raising of a facially
meritless challenge. Hence, the Court finds no basis or appoint counsel or to reopen this
action.
b.
In Bacon v. AKFC Plaintiff raised a premature claim (seeking monetary damages on the
basis of his conviction) barred by the holding Heck. In response to the Court’s previous
Order, Plaintiff submitted a statement reading, “Your Honor, I would like special counsel.”
Bacon v. AKFC, Docket Entry No. 9. However, nothing in that submission suggested that
the Heck bar has been removed by the entry of a favorable state court or federal habeas writ
vacating Plaintiff’s conviction. Rather, Plaintiff’s submission indicated that, in the event
counsel is appointed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff would offer that counsel no viable facts on which
that are wholly incomprehensible or suggest a “fantastic/delusional” challenge: since such
appointment cannot be squared with either the letter or the spirit of Tabron.
Page 11 of 22
to build a cognizable claim” Thus, the Court finds no basis or appoint counsel or to
reopen this action.
c.
In Bacon v. Whitman, where Plaintiff asserted that the former Governor of New Jersey, a
non-attorney, “put criminal charges on a child,” Plaintiff has filed a similar request for
counsel, i.e., “Your Honor, I would like special counsel.” Bacon v. Whitman, Docket
Entry No. 9. Yet nothing in that submission suggests that the former Governor was or
could have been personally involved in Plaintiff’s criminal prosecution, and nothing in that
submission hints at a claim other than a non-cognizable purely respondeat superior
challenge. Rather, that submission signaled that, if counsel is appointed to Plaintiff,
Plaintiff would insist on asserting of a facially meritless challenge seeking “88 zillion
dollars.” Consequently, the Court finds no basis or appoint counsel or to reopen this
action.
d.
In Bacon v. Davis, another action raising claims duplicative of the forced medication
challenges being adjudicated in Bacon v. Burns, Plaintiff again submitted the very same
statement, i.e., “Your Honor, I would like special counsel.” Bacon v. Davis, Docket Entry
No. 9. However, as Bacon v. Davis is duplicative of Bacon v. Burns, and given prudential
considerations underlying the judicial policy requiring termination of duplicative matters,
the Court finds there is no basis to permit this matter to proceed or to appoint counsel in this
matter.
e.
In Bacon v. Jamesburg, in which Plaintiff asserted that a juvenile correctional facility
“brought no legal law[]yers for child,” Plaintiff submitted a supplemental statement
reading, “They never met a juvenile [illegible] a lawyer before the forced him to say
anything or [illegible] anything.” Bacon v. Jamesburg, Docket Entry No. 9. That
Page 12 of 22
statement, however, did not offer the Court any indication that the detention center
committed any civil rights violation. Moreover, the above-quoted record Plaintiff
submitted in Bacon v. Atlantic County Police Dep’t, Civil Action No. 13-2216, amply
showed that Plaintiff had proper and vigorous legal representation in the criminal matter
prosecuted against him.23 Plaintiff’s complaint lacks merit, and, consequently, the Court
finds no basis to appoint counsel or to reopen this action.
f.
In Bacon v. Forsythe, in which Plaintiff alleged that a certain inmate violated his rights by
falsely testifying in court, Plaintiff has submitted the statement reading, “Your Honor, I
would like special counsel.” Bacon v. Forsythe, Docket Entry No. 9. However, given the
absolute immunity of witnesses from civil suit; Plaintiff is attempting to assert a wholly
meritless challenge. Thus, the Court finds no basis or appoint counsel or to reopen this
action.
g.
In Bacon v. Roth, Plaintiff again raised the forced medication challenges duplicative of
those litigated in Bacon v. Burns, Plaintiff submitted a statement alleging, “Dr. Roth forced
me to take meds dangerous to my life.” Bacon v. Roth, Docket Entry No. 7. However, as
detailed supra, the very issue of whether Plaintiff was properly medicated is at the heart of
Plaintiff’s Bacon v. Burns action, and nothing in Plaintiff’s submission renders Bacon v.
Roth non-duplicative of Bacon v. Burns. Rather, that submission leads the Court to
presume that, in the event counsel is appointed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff would insist on
23
Moreover, even if the Court were to construe Plaintiff’s latest Bacon v. Jamesburg statement as
hinting at Plaintiff’s arrest and post-arrest interrogation statements, thus implicating the holding of
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Plaintiff’s so-construed challenges would not give rise
to a cognizable civil rights claim. See Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 766 (2003); Renda v.
King, 347 F.3d 550, 552, 557 (3d Cir. 2003); Williams v. Tansey, 610 Supp. 1083 (E.D. Pa. 1985);
see also Dunkin v. Lamb, 500 F. Supp. 184 (D.C. Nev. 1980).
Page 13 of 22
prosecution of a wholly duplicative action.24 Thus, the Court finds no basis or appoint
counsel or to reopen this action.
h.
In Bacon v. Atlantic City Police, that is, the action where Plaintiff asserted “police
brutality” and “attempted murder” by police, Plaintiff submitted two supplemental
statements, both reading, again, “Your Honor, I would like special counsel.” Bacon v.
Atlantic City Police, Docket Entries Nos. 7 and 8. Plaintiff’s bald assertions perhaps hint
at an excessive force claim, but the complaint is devoid of any factual detail and, therefore,
is not sufficient to state a claim. However, the Court will permit Plaintiff, should he wish
to proceed with this matter, to file a request to reopen the matter with a proposed amended
complaint within 30 days. The amended complaint should set forth the factual detail to
support Plaintiff’s claims, as such is necessary permit the Court to determine whether the
case should proceed as well as the merits of Plaintiff’s request for counsel.
i.
In Bacon v. Mane, in which Plaintiff alleged that a certain Mr. Mane, who “runs Anne
Klein Forensic Center,” violated Plaintiff’s rights because Mr. Mane “told his officers to
violate [Plaintiff’s] freedom of speech [since Plaintiff] couldn’t say what [he] wanted to
say,” Plaintiff submitted a statement reading, “Mane tells his staf[f] to r[e]strict my 1st
Amendment right [by] say[ing that] I can’t say what I want to say.” Bacon v. Mane,
Docket Entry No. 7. However, this statement does not suggest that Plaintiff’s protected
24
Generally, federal courts are neither in the position to conduct nor concern themselves with
second-guessing the prescribed medical treatments. See, e.g., White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103
(3d Cir. 1990). However, the decisions rendered by Judge Simandle in Bacon v. Burns reflect on
the considerations and potential objections Plaintiff and his family members might have made
upon being informed about Plaintiff’s proposed course of treatment and, derivative from the same,
upon the benefits and dangers of the selected course of treatment. Therefore, to the degree
Plaintiff’s Bacon v. Roth challenges invite this Court to second-guess the course of medical
treatment prescribed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s allegations offer not a hint at a viable claim, while his
derivative challenges mimic the once currently litigated in Bacon v. Burns.
Page 14 of 22
speech has been implicated; rather, it appears that Plaintiff has been prevented from
making utterances that have no relation to his constitutional rights. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
submission suggests that, if counsel is appointed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff would urge that
counsel to pursue a wholly meritless claim. Therefore, the Court finds no basis or appoint
counsel or to reopen this action.
j.
In Bacon v. Anne Klein Forensic Center, that is, the matter where Plaintiff asserted that “all
staff” of the Anne Klein Forensic Center violated “all [his] rights,” Plaintiff filed the same
statement, i.e., he asserted, again, that “Mane tells his staf[f] to r[e]strict my 1st
Amendment right [by] say[ing that] I can’t say what I want to say.” Bacon v. Anne Klein
Forensic Center, Docket Entry No. 7.
Yet, that statement yields the result identical to
that achieved in Bacon v. Mane, i.e., it suggests that, in the event counsel is appointed to
Plaintiff, Plaintiff would insist on prosecuting a facially meritless claim. Therefore, the
Court finds no basis or appoint counsel or to reopen this action.
k.
In Bacon v. Kazanes, that is, the action where Plaintiff alleged that a certain inmate
“assaulted” Plaintiff “with [a] book,” Plaintiff filed a statement reading, “I couldn’t hit
back because there are no self[-]defense laws in New Jersey.” Bacon v. Kazanes, Docket
Entry No. 7. Nothing in Plaintiff’s submissions hint at a federal claim. Thus, the Court
finds no basis or appoint counsel or to reopen this action.
l.
In Bacon v. Johnson, i.e., the case where Plaintiff alleged that another inmate “assaulted
[him] with closed fist,” Plaintiff filed the same statement, reading, “I couldn’t hit back
because there are no self[-]defense laws in New Jersey.” Bacon v. Johnson, Docket Entry
No. 6. That statement raises concerns identical to the ones detailed with regard to
Page 15 of 22
Plaintiff’s submission made in Bacon v. Kazanes. Thus, the Court finds no basis or
appoint counsel or to reopen this action.
m.
In Bacon v. M.S.O. Sylvester, that is, the matter where Plaintiff asserted that a certain
prison officer made “terroristic threats” by telling Plaintiff that, during some “October,”
the officer would “get [Plaintiff] hurt,” Plaintiff also filed the statement reading, “I
couldn’t hit back because there are no self[-]defense laws in New Jersey.” Bacon v.
M.S.O. Sylvester, Docket Entry No. 6. While the allegations in that matter may meet the
color of law requirement, they are facially insufficient because they are based upon
speculation regarding a future event.26 Consequently, the Court finds no basis or appoint
counsel or to reopen this action.
n.
In Bacon v. Trenton State Prison, in which Plaintiff asserted that the “prison” confined him
in a “laboratory testing facility against [his] will,” Plaintiff submitted a statement reading,
“Trenton state prison stole from me and hurt me by jumping me to my [illegible].” Bacon
v. Trenton State Prison, Docket Entry No. 6. However, Plaintiff’s statement – which
evinces no correlation to his pleading – suggests a barred claim.27 Thus, the Court finds
no basis or appoint counsel or to reopen this action.
26
See Hood v. Cumberland County Dep’t of Corr., No. 12-6395, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52907,
at *13 (D.N.J. Apr. 11, 2013). “Speculation as to what might or might not happen in the future”
cannot serve as a basis for a valid claim. Dawson v. Frias, No. 09-6050, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
30513 at *8 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2010) (“speculation as to what might or might not happen in the
future” cannot serve as a basis for a valid claim) (citing Rouse v. Pauliilo, No. 05-5157, 2006 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 17225 (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2006) (dismissing speculative claim as to a hypothetical future
development and citing Kirby v. Siegelman, 195 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 1999)); see also Pilkey v.
Lappin, No. 05-5314, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44418, at *45 (D.N.J. June 26, 2006) (“Plaintiff's
[anxiety] fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted”); Patterson v. Lilley, No.
02-6056, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11097 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2003).
27
The New Jersey Tort Claims Act (“NJTCA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:1-1 et seq., provides all the
process that is due. See Holman v. Hilton, 712 F.2d 854, 857 (3d Cir. 1983); Asquith v.
Volunteers of America, 1 F. Supp.2d 405, 419 (D.N.J. 1998), aff’d, 186 F.3d 407 (3d Cir. 1999).
Page 16 of 22
o.
In Bacon v. All Medical Staff, that is, the matter where Plaintiff alleged that all medical
staff “violated [his] patient[’s] bill of rights illegally and disrespectfully,” he submitted a
statement reading, “[M]edical staff always acts like they’re mad and don’t want to [do]
their job. And they [are] disrespect[ful].” Bacon v. All Medical Staff, Docket Entry No. 6.
However, neither Plaintiff’s disagreement with how his medical treatment is conducted nor
his displeasure with the amount of respect he receives can support a cognizable claim.
See White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103; Jones v. Lockhart, 484 F.2d 1192 (8th Cir. 1973);
Hyde v. McGinnis, 429 F.2d 864 (2d Cir. 1970); see also Dawson v. NJ State Trooper
Barracks, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92922, at *7 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2011) (“[T]he Constitution
is not a manual of etiquette, nor is the Court an arbiter of good taste”) (quoting King v.
Lienemann, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21968, at *16 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2011)). Therefore, the
Court finds no basis or appoint counsel or to reopen this action.
p.
In Bacon v. Doctors Supervisors, that is, the action where Plaintiff alleged that “Doctors
Supervisors” violated his rights by failing to cure him, Plaintiff filed a statement reading,
“Your Honor, I would like special counsel.” Bacon v. Doctors Supervisors, Docket Entry
No. 6. However, since Plaintiff has no constitutional right in getting “cure[d],” his
statement cannot alter the core deficiency of his challenge. Therefore, the Court finds no
basis or appoint counsel or to reopen this action.
r.
In Bacon v. All M.S.O’s, i.e., the matter where Plaintiff asserted that “all M.S.O’s”
“disrespected and violated” his unspecified rights, Plaintiff filed a statement reading,
“Your Honor, I would like special counsel.” Bacon v. All M.S.O’s, Docket Entry No. 6.
Because the NJTCA offers a post-deprivation remedy providing all the process which is due,
Plaintiff’s due process deprivation of property claim would necessarily fails. See id.; see also
Pettaway v. SCI Albion, 487 F. App’x 766 (3d Cir. 2012) (dismissing as frivolous inmate’s appeal
challenging order dismissing his deprivation of property claim).
Page 17 of 22
However, as noted supra, Plaintiff’s displeasure with insufficient respect – or his bold
assertion that his unspecified rights have been violated by “all M.S.O.’s” – cannot lend
support to a viable claim. Therefore, the Court finds no basis or appoint counsel or to
reopen this action.
s.
In Bacon v. Kitchen Supervisors, that is, the action where Plaintiff alleged that “Kitchen
Supervisors” violated his rights because they “did not help to prepare food,” Plaintiff
submitted a statement reading, “[t]he supervisors of the kitchen don’t make sure the food is
right. And get not when they have to being [illegible] they doing on these.” Bacon v.
Kitchen Supervisors, Docket Entry No. 7.29 Yet, these statements suggest only Plaintiff’s
displeasure with the diet he is served; they do not indicate any personal involvement of the
supervising officers, and they fail to suggest that Plaintiff suffered of malnutrition in
violation of his Eighth Amendment – or due process – rights.30 Therefore, the Court finds
no basis or appoint counsel or to reopen this action.
t.
In Bacon v. M.S.O. Lopez, in which Plaintiff alleged that a certain M.S.O. Lopez violated
his rights because M.S.O. Lopez “assaulted [some] patient with [a] minor infraction”
29
As the Court pointed out supra, Plaintiff commenced two Bacon v. Kitchen Supervisors
actions. The allegation that “Kitchen Supervisors” violated his rights because they “did not help
to prepare food” was raised in Civil Action No. 12-3392. In Civil Action No. 12-3393, Plaintiff
asserted that “Kitchen Supervisors” violated his rights because they “did not feed [him the] right
meal[s].” In that action, Plaintiff submitted a statement reading, “I would like all my cases pro
bono for pro bono lawyers.” Civil Action No. 12-3393, Docket Entry No. 7. For the reasons
substantively identical to those detailed with regard to Civil Action No. 12-3392, Plaintiff’s claims
intended to be litigated in Civil Action No. 12-3393 appear well suited for dismissal without
prejudice to litigation at the time when Plaintiff comes to sane mind and assesses his memories
intelligently or obtains a general guardian who examines all events in Plaintiff’s life in order to
distill the factual predicate, if any, supporting a plausible claim.
30
The filings made in the above-captioned matters and those presided by Judge Simandle suggest
that Plaintiff is a civilly committed individual. However, the Court cannot rule out that Plaintiff is
a state prisoner confined at a mental facility because of his psychological disorders.
Page 18 of 22
causing that patient the “need [for] needles in [his] body,” Plaintiff submitted a statement
asserting that M.S.O. Lopez “pushed” him and Plaintiff had “to take a steroid shot.”
Bacon v. M.S.O. Lopez, Docket Entry No. 7. However, Plaintiff’s earlier submissions in
this action state that the steroids administered to Plaintiff were for bursitis in his shoulder
and not any injury. See Docket Entry 4. Because “[a]n inmate who complains of a
[mere] ‘push or shove’ that causes no discernible injury almost certainly fails to state a
valid excessive force claim,” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S. Ct. 1175, 1179 (2010) (quoting
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992)), the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to
plead facts that state a viable claim. Therefore, the Court finds no basis or appoint counsel
or to reopen this action.
u.
In Bacon v. State of New Jersey, in which Plaintiff asserted that the State violated his rights
by failing to release him from confinement or to move him to a certain camp, Plaintiff filed
the statement reading, “I would like all my cases pro bono for pro bono lawyers.” Bacon
v. State of New Jersey, Docket Entry No. 6. Yet, Plaintiff’s challenges to the alleged
failure to release him are premature under the holding of Heck, or the fact that he has no
viable claim in light of his lack of due process right to being confined at a particular facility
or the facility of his choice. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005); Olim v.
Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976);
Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 243 (1976). Therefore, the Court finds no basis or
appoint counsel or to reopen this action.
v.
In Bacon v. Atlantic City Press in which Plaintiff alleged that a local newspaper violated
his rights because it “put a juvenile in jeopardy” by “put[ting that] juvenile[’s] name in the
paper,” Plaintiff also filed the statement reading, “I would like all my cases pro bono for
Page 19 of 22
pro bono lawyers.” Bacon v. Atlantic City Press, Docket Entry No. 6. However,
Plaintiff’s challenge is subject to dismissal for lack of state action. See Scheetz v.
Morning Call, Inc., 747 F. Supp. 1515, 1520 (E.D. Pa. 1990); Talmadge v. Herald News,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78078 (D.N.J. Oct. 22, 2007); Oliver v. Philadelphia Daily News,
1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5890 (E.D. Pa. May 26, 1989); Picozzi v. WPVI-TV Channel 6
Action News, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12162 (D.N.J. Feb. 1, 2012); Cannon v. Delaware,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64958 (D. Del. May 8, 2012). Therefore, the Court finds no basis
or appoint counsel or to reopen this action.32
w.
In Bacon v. Surveillance Security, in which Plaintiff asserted that a certain “surveillance
security” should have had but “d[id]n’t have cameras in every camp,” and that violated
Plaintiff’s rights, Plaintiff submitted a statement reading, “All the doctors hide in the
building so they won’t see patients that need help.” Bacon v. Surveillance Security,
Docket Entry No. 5. This statement suggests that Plaintiff is raising wholly speculative
challenges. Thus, his claims having no viable factual predicate, the Court finds no basis
or appoint counsel or to reopen this action.
x.
In his Bacon v. All Doctors action, where Plaintiff alleged that unspecified doctors “treated
[Plaintiff] irrespo[n]sibl[]y” by violating Plaintiff’s “patient[’s] bill of rights,” Plaintiff
again submitted the statement reading, “All the doctors hide in the building so they won’t
32
Plaintiff commenced two actions captioned Bacon v. Atlantic City Press: in addition to Civil
Action No. 12-3575, he also initiated Civil Action No. 12-4511, where he repeated the same
challenges. In that matter, the Clerk received and filed Plaintiff’s statement reading, “I would like
all my cases pro bono for pro bono lawyers.” Civil Action No. 12-4511, Docket Entry No. 5.
However, this Court cannot rule out that Plaintiff intended to file in that matter the statement
docketed in his Civil Action No. 12-4341, where the Clerk received Plaintiff’s statement reading,
“The Atlantic City Press put a child name in the [illegible] paper: Joel B- - -. They were illegal.”
See id., Docket Entry No. 5. However, such Section 1983 claim necessarily fails for failure to
show an action under color of law.
Page 20 of 22
see patients that need help.” Bacon v. All Doctors, Docket Entry No. 5. Thus, for the
same reasons above, the Court finds no basis or appoint counsel or to reopen this action.33
y.
In Bacon v. All Treatment Teams, in which Plaintiff initially asserted that unspecified
“treatment teams . . . did not notify [unspecified] to help,” the Clerk received and docketed
Plaintiff’s statement about a newspaper, Atlantic City Press. See footnote 32.34 No
viable claim can be discerned by the Court based on any of Plaintiff’s allegations and,
therefore, it appears that appointing counsel at this juncture would be futile. Rather, the
claims shall remain dismissed.
z.
Finally, in Bacon v. [Anne Klein Forensic Center] Supervisors [of] 1st [and] 2nd [and] 3rd
Shift, in which Plaintiff asserted that certain unspecified “supervisors” violated his rights
because they “were suppose[d] to help [Plaintiff] stay safe,” Plaintiff submitted a statement
reading, “From the supervisors on 1st 2nd 3rd shift I never get help or treated right. They
never try to talk and get not if [I] want to talk.” Bacon v. [Anne Klein Forensic Center]
Supervisors [of] 1st [and] 2nd [and] 3rd Shift, Docket Entry No. 4. This statement
indicates that Plaintiff has no facts suggesting a failure to protect claim; rather, it appears
that Plaintiff wishes to litigate his dissatisfaction with the socializing he receives. Thus,
as Plaintiff has presented no facts from which the Court can construe a viable claim, it
33
If this Court were to construe only Plaintiff’s original statement that all doctors “treated
[Plaintiff] irrespo[n]sibl[]y” as a medical malpractice challenge, Plaintiff’s claims would still be
subject to dismissal, be they assessed under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment. See Robinson
v. Temple Univ. Health Svcs., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25383 (3d Cir. 12, 2012) (relying on Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); see also White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 108-09 (3d Cir.
1990).
34
Since Plaintiff has filed over thirty actions in this District, the Court cannot rule out that
Plaintiff has lost track of some of his litigations.
Page 21 of 22
appears that the appointment of counsel would be futile here. The matter, therefore, shall
remain closed.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, all of Plaintiff’s above-captioned actions are dismissed and will
remain closed. Plaintiff’s requests for pro bono counsel are denied without prejudice. Plaintiff
may file a request to reopen the matter of Bacon v. Atlantic City Police, Civil Action No. 12-2883,
and for leave to file an amended complaint, attaching to any such request a proposed amended
complaint addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Such a request must be filed within 30
days of the date of the accompanying Order. An appropriate Order follows.
/s/ Joel A. Pisano
JOEL A. PISANO
United States District Judge
Dated: November 14, 2013
Page 22 of 22
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?