Payen v. The, F-B-I, Proseutor et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM re. complaint (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 05/04/15. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LAGUERRE PAYEN,
Plaintiff
vs.
THE F-B-I, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-14-1034
(Judge Caldwell)

MEMORANDUM
I.

Introduction
In April 2014, the pro se plaintiff, Laguerre Payen, an inmate at the United

States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (USP Lewisburg), filed this civil-rights action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. (Doc. 2, Compl.)
After screening the thirty-four-page Complaint, the court dismissed several claims and
defendants. (Doc. 8, Transfer Order). The court transferred the remaining Bivens claims
against the following defendants to this court: Sudul; Fuller; Johason; Braverman; Stein;
Vizzle, Mitchell, Maysonet, Sample, Griswald; Kabonick; Dunstone, and several “John Doe”
Defendants.
Due to Payen’s failure to allege the personal involvement of the remaining
defendants, he will be required to file an amended complaint.

II.

Background
Payen alleges that the events giving rise to his claims took place at USP

Lewisburg, USP Canaan, FCI Hazleton, and FCC Coleman.1 The Complaint is not the
model of clarity, but it appears to allege that while Plaintiff was housed at USP-Canaan, on
June 14, 2013, he was assaulted by Bureau of Prison (BOP) staff and injured. (Id., ECF p.
23). He avers he was kicked in the face and dislocated his finger and that he did not
receive proper medical treatment for his injuries. It is also possible that the events
complained of took place while he was housed at USP Allenwood. (Doc. 2, ECF p. 20).
Plaintiff also alleges he was prescribed too much Meuronto which resulted in
him overdosing on this medication. (Id., ECF p. 31). Finally, he also claims that while
housed at USP-Canaan, and while that institution was in an extended lockdown phase due
to the murder of a corrections officer, Payen “was served inadequate food base[d] on
religious belief.” (Id., ECF p. 32).

III.

Discussion
To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must plead two essential elements: (1) the

conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2)
the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States. Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 646 (3d Cir. 2009).
To establish personal liability against a defendant in a section 1983 action, an individual
government defendant must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs; liability

1

Only USP Lewisburg and USP Canaan are within the jurisdiction of the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.

-2-

cannot be predicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior. Evancho v. Fisher,
423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207(3d
Cir. 1988)).
Upon the court’s generous reading of the Complaint, it appears Payen is
asserting: (1) an excessive-force claim; (2) a claim for denial of medical care; (3) a
conditions-of-confinement claim related to lack of proper nutrition; and (4) a claim of
religious discrimination. Unclear to the court is the alleged personal involvement of any of
the remaining defendants in these alleged constitutional violations or even where these
events took place. However, because it is believed that it is possible for Payen to remedy
these deficiencies by filing an amended complaint, he will be given the opportunity to do so.

Payen will be granted twenty-one days to file an amended complaint. If
Payen decides to file an amended complaint, he is advised that it must contain the same
docket number as the instant action and should be labeled “Amended Complaint.” In
addition, the "amended complaint must be complete in all respects. It must be a new
pleading which stands by itself as an adequate complaint without reference to the
complaint already filed." Young v. Keohane, 809 F.Supp. 1185, 1198 (M.D. Pa. 1992).
Payen is advised that any amended complaint he may file supersedes the original
complaint. Consequently, all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are
not re-alleged in the amended complaint are waived.
Payen is also advised that his amended complaint must be concise and
direct. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). Each allegation must be set forth in an individually
numbered paragraphs in short, concise and simple statements. Id. The allegations should
-3-

be specific as to time and place, and should identify the specific person or persons
responsible for the deprivation of his constitutional rights and what each individual did that
led to deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676, 129 S.Ct. at 1948. He also shall
specify the relief he seeks with regard to each claim. Payen’s failure to file an appropriate
amended complaint within the required time will result in his claim being dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) due to his failure to state a claim on which relief
may be granted. Payen is also cautioned that illegible submissions will be returned to him
without consideration.
An appropriate order follows.
/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge

Date: May 4, 2015

-4-