Pratt v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - AND NOW, this 19th day of Oct., 2011, upon review of the complt. 1 in mandamus under 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), it is ordered that: 1. Plf.'s mtn. for leave to proceed IFP 2 is construed as a mtn. to proceed w/out full prepayment of fees & costs, and is granted. 2. Plf.'s complt. in mandamus is dism'd pur. to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for lack of merit. 3. The Clerk of Crt. is dir. to close this case. (See memo for complete details.) Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 10/19/11. (am, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
QUARTUS LAMAR PRATT,
Plaintiff
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant

:
:
:
: CIVIL NO. 1:11-CV-1346
:
: (Judge Caldwell)
:
:
:

MEMORANDUM
I.

Introduction
The pro se plaintiff, Quartus Lamar Pratt, an inmate at USP-Lewisburg,

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed this action in mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
The only defendant is the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Pratt is seeking an order
mandating that the BOP transfer him to a “medical hospital for mental health treatment”
and place him in a single cell for his own protection. Doc. 1, Compl., CM/ECF p. 5.1
Along with his complaint in mandamus, Pratt has filed a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis (doc. 2). The complaint is presently before the court for preliminary
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court will grant Pratt’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, as it appears he qualifies for indigent status, but dismiss his
complaint in mandamus.

1

Unless otherwise noted, all citations to the record are to the docket number and page
number assigned by the electronic case filing system (CM/ECF) rather than the page numbers of
the original documents.

II.

Standard of Review
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary

circumstances. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 2123, 48
L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005).
“Before a writ of mandamus may issue, a party must establish that (1) no other adequate
means exist to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is
clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.”
Hollingsworth v. Perry,

U.S.

,

, 130 S.Ct. 705, 710, 175 L.Ed.2d 657 (2010)(per

curiam)(quotation marks and punctuation omitted); Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C.,
542 U.S. 367, 380-81, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004).

III.

Discussion
Plaintiff alleges he was injured on October 13, 2010, when he was

assaulted by another inmate.2 He now suffers from “depression, disturbing dreams, and
sleeping problems.” Doc. 1, Compl., CM/ECF p. 3. While his medication makes him feel
calm, it also makes him feel “very sleepy and slow,” which makes him feel “vulnerable
and uncomfortable around others.” Id. As relief, he seeks single-cell status and transfer
to a mental-health facility. Id. at p. 5.

Pratt has filed another suit arising from this incident, in which he asserts a claim
under the Federal Tort Claims Act and a Bivens claim. See Pratt v. United States, 1:11-cv1337 (M.D. Pa.).
2

-2-

In his complaint, Pratt implies that his petition is meritorious because the
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) failed to protect him from assault by another inmate and
because he continues to suffer from lingering mental-health issues after the assault.
However, to avail himself of mandamus relief, Pratt would have to establish: (1) that he
has a clear right to the relief he seeks (a single cell and transfer); (2) that the respondent
has a nondiscretionary duty to give him a single cell and mental health transfer at his
request; and (3) that he has no other adequate remedy. Pratt cannot satisfy these
criteria.
First, Pratt does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a
single-cell housing assignment. See Keeling v. Damiter, No. 09-147, 2010 WL 678091,
at *6 (M.D.Pa. Feb. 24, 2010). Further, neither past assaults upon him by cellmates nor
Pratt’s mental-health issues are valid bases for this court to order that prison officials
house him in a single cell. That judgment is left to prison administrators, who are in the
best position to decide his housing status and whether he can live with any particular
inmate. See Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330, 334 (3d Cir. 2001) (“the task of prison
administration is difficult, and . . . courts should afford deference to decisions made by
prison officials, who possess the necessary expertise”); DeFranco v. Wolfe, 387 F. App’x
147, 155 (3d Cir. 2010) (nonprecedential) (quoting Rauser).
Likewise, Pratt does not have a constitutional right to be transferred to a
prison of his choice. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 75 L.Ed.2d 813
(1983) (no constitutional right to chose particular correctional facility upon request);

-3-

Beckley v. Miner, 125 F. App’x 385 (3d Cir. 2005) (nonprecedential) (denying mandamus
request for prison transfer). Based on the above, Pratt is not entitled to the extraordinary
remedy of a writ of mandamus.
We will issue an appropriate order.

/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge
Date: October 19, 2011

-4-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
QUARTUS LAMAR PRATT,
Plaintiff
vs.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant

:
:
:
: CIVIL NO. 1:CV-11-1346
:
: (Judge Caldwell)
:
:
:

ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of October, 2011, upon review of the complaint in
mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), it is ordered that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 2) is construed as a motion to proceed without full
prepayment of fees and costs, and is granted.
2. Plaintiff’s complaint in mandamus is dismissed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for lack of merit.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge