Harris v. FBOP et al

Filing 4

Memorandum Opinion and Order Plaintiff's 1 Complaint is hereby dismissed as against the FBOP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this dismissal could not be taken in good faith. This action may proceed as against the remaining individual Defendants. The Clerk's Office is directed to forward the appropriate documents to the U.S. Marshals for service of process on the remaining Defendants, and a copy of this order shall be included with the documents to be served. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 6/7/2018. (S,L)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
KEELAN HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FBOP, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:18CV156

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER

I.
Pro se Plaintiff Keelan Harris, a federal prisoner in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons
at FCI Elkton in Lisbon, Ohio, has filed this civil rights action, pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“FBOP”)
and fifteen federal officials or employees of FCI Elkton or the FBOP, alleging his constitutional
rights are being violated because he has been unable to obtain a marriage license to marry his
fiancee. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id. For the reasons that follow, the
Court partially dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
1915A.
II.
Federal district courts are expressly required, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
1915A, to screen all in forma pauperis complaints and all actions in which a prisoner seeks
redress from governmental officials or employees, and to dismiss before service any such action
that the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state claim on which relief may be

(4:18CV156)
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See Hill v.
Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010).
Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed as against the
FBOP. Bivens actions may only be brought against individual federal officials alleged to have
violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S.
61, 70, 122 S.Ct. 515, 521,151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001). Accordingly, the Complaint fails to state a
plausible claim for relief against the FBOP in this Bivens action.
The Court will allow the action to proceed against the remaining Defendants. Broadly
construed, the Complaint appears to allege that all of the individual Defendants were involved, in
some capacity, in violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by failing to assist him in obtaining a
marriage license while incarcerated; denying his marriage request; or, retaliating against him for
exercising his constitutional rights to seek a marriage license and file grievances. ECF No. 1.
III.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby dismissed as against the FBOP pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),
that an appeal from this dismissal could not be taken in good faith.
This action may proceed as against the remaining individual Defendants. The Clerk’s
Office is directed to forward the appropriate documents to the U.S. Marshals for service of
process on the remaining Defendants, and a copy of this order shall be included with the
documents to be served.

2

(4:18CV156)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 7, 2018
Date

/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

3