Bower v. Zalno et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry).Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 2/13/17. (sc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES BOWER,
Plaintiff
vs.
BETH ZALNO, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:16-CV-02048
(Judge Kane)

MEMORANDUM
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.

Notably,

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.
6.)

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
constitutional rights.
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.

(Id.)

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
responsible defendant.
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.)
2

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)
3