Bower v. Zalno et al
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry).Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 2/13/17. (sc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BETH ZALNO, et al.,
On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff Charles Bower, an inmate at
that time at Federal Correctional Institution at Allenwood (“FCIAllenwood”), White Deer, Pennsylvania filed a Bivens-styled1
complaint against thirteen individuals employed at FCI-Allenwood.
(Doc. No. 1.)
Bower’s complaint was a disjointed 16-page
typewritten document which did not delineate how the named
defendants violated any of his constitutional rights.
Bower failed to connect any of the named defendants to the conduct
alleged in the complaint.
It appeared the entire gist of his
complaint was that he was found guilty of misconduct for failing
to give a urine sample for drug testing.
He also set forth in
the complaint a vague, rambling and disjointed history of his
medical and psychological problems.
On October 25, 2016, Bower
filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No.
On December 6, 2016, Bower filed a motion to amend the
complaint (Doc. No. 14), in which he requested leave to add five
1. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1977).
defendants to the complaint.
With respect to those five
defendants Bower did not explain how they violated any of his
On December 16, 2016, the Court dismissed Bower’s complaint
pursuant to the screening provisions of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted with leave to file an amended
complaint within 30 days and deemed Bower’s motion to amend moot.
(Doc. Nos. 17, 18.)2
The court further found that the complaint
violated the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Bower was also advised that the
amended complaint had to be complete in all respects, a new
pleading which stood by itself without reference to the complaint
or the other documents already filed; and it had to set forth his
claims in short, concise and plain statements referring to time
and place, and connecting the allegations of misconduct with each
On January 31, 2017, Bower filed what purports
to be an amended complaint and a document entitled “Commercial
Affidavit of Truth” which lists 22 defendants.
(Doc. No. 22, 24.)
Although some of the defendants are referred throughout the
documents, neither document cures the defects of the original
complaint. Both documents are rambling, disjointed, conclusory
2. The court incorporates herein by reference the reasoning set
forth in the memorandum of December 16, 2016. (Doc. No. 17.)
legal polemics and in violation of Rule 8 and fail to state any
claim upon which relief can be granted.
The documents do not meet
the pleading requirements of Rule 8 or Twombly and Iqbal.3
Consequently, the amended complaint will be dismissed without
further leave to file a second amended complaint.
An appropriate order will be entered.
3. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955,
167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129
S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)
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?