ZAMICHIELI v. ANDREWS et al
MEMORANDUM SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE GREGORY M. SLEET ON 6/16/14. 6/18/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLFF., MAILED AND E-MAILED TO COUNSEL, 1 COPY TO LEGAL BIN.(pr, ) Modified on 6/18/2014 (pr, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM ANDREWS, et al.,
Civil Action No. 12-cv-3200-GMS
1. Introduction. The plaintiff, Wheeler Zamichieli ("the plaintiff'), a pro se litigant
who is presently incarcerated at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, filed
this civil rights action in 2012. Currently pending are numerous motions filed by the plaintiff.
(D.I. 63, 64, 65, 68, 73, 75.)
2. Motion for service (D.I. 63); Motion for enlargement of time to serve (D.I. 73).
The court will deny as moot the motion to direct the U.S. Marshals Service to locate and serve
the defendant Ronald Dove ("Dove") (D.I. 63) and motion for enlargement of time to serve Dove
(D.I. 73). The court docket reflects that service was effected upon Dove on May 14, 2014. (See
3. Motion to use CM/EFT (D.I. 64). The court will deny the motion for the plaintiff to
direct the warden at FDC-Philadelphia to make available to him a link to access the CM/ECF
filing system. The plaintiff indicates that the domain has been blocked by prison officials.
Prison officials require broad discretionary authority as the "operation of a correctional
institution is at best an extraordinarily difficult undertaking." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,
566 (1974). Hence, prison administrators are accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption
and execution of policies and practices that are needed to preserve internal order and to maintain
institutional security. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 527 (1979). The federal courts are not
overseers of the day-to-day management of prisons, and the court will not interfere in FDC-
Philadelphia's policy of blocking access to certain web-sites.
4. Application for prejudgment remedies against Dove (D.I. 65); Motion to forward
D.I. 65 to Dove (D.I. 68). The court will deny the application for prejudgment remedies (D.I.
65) and will deny as moot the motion to forward the application (D.I. 68). The plaintiff invokes
28 U.S.C. §§ 3103 through 3105 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 64. Rule 64 provides, as follows: "At the
commencement of and throughout an action, every remedy is available that, under the law of the
state where the court is located, provides for seizing a person or property to secure satisfaction of
the potential judgment. But a federal statute governs to the extent it applies." Fed. R. Civ. P.
5. The plaintiff seeks prejudgment attachment of Dove's assets. Although prejudgment
attachment of property is provided for by Pennsylvania law pursuant to 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7501,
the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure which permitted prejudgment attachment were
rescinded by 1989 amendments following court rulings in Jannett v. Dollar Sav. Bank, 530 F .2d
1123 (3d Cir. 1976) and Schreiber v. Republic lntermodel Corp., 375 A.2d 1285 (Pa. 1977) that
Pennsylvania's procedures governing foreign attachment (Pa. R. Civ. P. 1285 to 1292 (repealed))
were constitutionally deficient. See Borough ofAmbler v. Regenbogen, 713 A.2d 145 n.3 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1998) (citing 17 Standard Pa. Practice 2d § 94: 1 (1997)); see also Connecticut v. Doehr,
501 U.S. 1 n.6 (1991) (noting Pennsylvania's prejudgment attachment statutes have been
6. Motion to file supplemental pleading (D.I. 75). The court will deny the plaintiffs
motion to file supplemental pleading. (D.I. 75.) In essence, the plaintiff moves to amend. The
court will not consider motions to amend without a proposed pleading, as amended, that
indicates in what respect it differs from the pleading which is amends, by bracketing or striking
through materials to be deleted and underlining materials to be added.
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?