Galloway v. U.S. Department of Justice et al
Filing
5
Memorandum of Opinion and Order This action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 7/29/2016. (E,CK)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHARLES LEONARD GALLOWAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:16CV01219
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER [Resolving ECF No. 1]
Pro se Plaintiff Charles Leonard Galloway has filed this civil action against the United
States Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. See ECF No. 1. This action
arises from the same allegations Plaintiff has asserted in prior civil rights cases,1 i.e., that he had
an aneurysm while incarcerated in a special housing unit in FCI Elkton after he was accused of
faking a medical condition at sick call. He seeks relief under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e) and 1915A, a district court is required to dismiss before
service any in forma pauperis civil action, and any action in which a prisoner seeks redress from
a governmental entity, that the court determines is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010).
1
See Galloway v. FCI Elkton Med. Dep’t, Case No. 4:15CV02276 (dismissed);
Galloway v. Warden FCI - Elkton, et al., Case No. 4:16CV00572 (partially dismissed);
Galloway v. USA, 4:16CV00680 (dismissed).
(4:16CV01219)
Plaintiff’s claims under Bivens must be dismissed because such claims can only be
asserted against individual federal officials, not the United States or its agencies. See
Correctional Serv. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 70 (2001). Any tort claim Plaintiff asserts
under the Federal Tort Claims Act is duplicative of claims he has already asserted on the same
facts in a prior civil rights lawsuit pending in this Court. See Galloway v. Warden FCI - Elkton,
et al., Case No. 4:16CV00572 (partially dismissed).
Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. The
Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could
not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 29, 2016
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
2
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?