Souleman v. Chronister et al
MEMORANDUM re 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Hamadi Hamid Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 6/12/12. (jam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HAMADI HAMID SOULEMAN,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-154
STEVE CHRONISTER, et al.,
(MAGISTRATE JUDGE BLEWITT)
Presently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Thomas M. Blewitt. Because the Court finds no substance to the Plaintiff’s objections to the
Report and Recommendation, and no clear error in the overall Report and Recommendation,
the objections will be denied and the Report and Recommendation will be adopted in full.
Plaintiff Hamadi Hamid Souleman, currently an inmate at the Perry County Prison in
New Bloomfield, Pennsylvania, filed his Complaint on January 26, 2012. (Doc. 1.) In his
Complaint, Souleman alleges the following. Souleman is currently an Immigration and
Naturalization Service (“INS”) detainee at the Perry County Prison. On February 3, 2010,
while an inmate at the York County Prison (“YCP”) in York, Pennsylvania, Souleman was
made to pack his belongings for an intra-prison transfer. Since Defendant Captain Kluyber
would not let Souleman out of his handcuffs, another inmate packed up Souleman’s
possessions for him. While this was occurring, Corrections Officer Domer pushed Souleman
into a metal bed frame and then slammed him into a wall repeatedly. Souleman, becoming
dizzy, started to fall. He was then kneed and pushed outside the cell and into a guardrail.
Captain Kluyber, apparently having witnessed the attack, refused to take Souleman to
medical for treatment but directed him to fill out a sick call instead. As a result of the assault,
Souleman suffered injury in the form of a “lump in the brain and severe back pain and loss
of memory.” (Compl. at 2, Doc. 1.) This lump on his brain was not found until weeks later
when Souleman was taken to the Apple Hill Clinic for a MRI. This injury has caused
Souleman to suffer from headaches, blurry vision, back pain, and loss of memory.
Further, on June 27, 2011, while still confined at YCP, Souleman refused treatment
by an outside eye doctor and was placed in segregation as a result. Defendant Captain
Kluyber then confiscated all of Souleman’s legal materials in connection with his immigration
case, which have never been returned notwithstanding Souleman’s appeal through the
Souleman’s instant Complaint brings a claim for excessive force against Defendant
Corrections Officer Domer, and claims for denial of medical care, failure to protect, and
denial of right to access to the courts against Defendant Captain Kluyber. Souleman also
implicates Defendants Steve Chronister and Doug Hoke, Commissioners of York County,
based on their alleged failure to respond to his grievance appeals.1 Souleman seeks
punitive damages, a declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief.
Souleman indicates that
he has exhausted his administrative remedies.
Magistrate Judge Blewitt reviewed the Complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation
In his Objection, Soulem an presents what appears to be an am ended pleading. W hile alm ost
identical to his original Com plaint, it drops Defendant Steve Chronister and incorporates Mary Sabol, the
W arden of York County Prison. As an initial m atter, Soulem an has not been given leave to am end his
Com plaint and this am ended pleading will not be accepted. However, even if it were accepted, the claim
against Sabol would fail as there is not a single allegation attributed to her within it.
Reform Act of 1995.1 Since Souleman is a federal detainee of ICE awaiting immigration
proceedings, Magistrate Judge Blewitt determined that Souleman’s constitutional claims for
excessive force and denial of medical care against the YCP Defendants fell under the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
As such, Magistrate Judge Blewitt
recommended that Souleman’s excessive force claim against Defendant Corrections Officer
Domer should be allowed to proceed, as should his claims for failure to protect and denial
of medical care against Defendant Captain Kluyber. However, it was recommended that
Souleman’s claim against Defendant Captain Kluyber for denial of access to courts be
dismissed without prejudice as Souleman had not pleaded any actual harm to his
immigration court proceeding as result of Defendant Kluyber’s alleged conduct.
Magistrate Judge Blewitt further recommended that Souleman's request for injunctive
relief as to Defendants Corrections Officer Domer and Captain Kluyber be dismissed with
prejudice as moot since Plaintiff is no longer confined at YCP.
Similarly, he also
recommended that Souleman's request for declaratory judgment, insofar as it related to past
conduct, should also be dismissed with prejudice as moot. To the extent Souleman sought
to recover monetary damages from the state actor Defendants in their official capacities,
Magistrate Judge Blewitt noted that this was not permissible and recommended dismissal
with prejudice as to those damages.2 Additionally, Magistrate Judge Blewitt recommended
that both supervisory Defendants Hoke and Chronister be dismissed with prejudice as
Magistrate Judge Blewitt reviewed the Com plaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) which
provides that in proceedings in form a pauperis, “the court shall dism iss the case at any tim e if the court
determ ines that . . . the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or m alicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief
m ay be granted; or (iii) seeks m onetary relief against a defendant who is im m une from such relief.”
Magistrate Judge Blewitt also noted that, pursuant to Middle District Local Rule 8.1, Soulem an’s
request for specific m onetary dam ages should be stricken from his Com plaint.
Souleman had impermissibly included them on a theory of respondeat superior as Souleman
had not stated any personal involvement on the part of either.
On March 26, 2012, Souleman filed his Objection to the Report and Recommendation
which is now ripe for the Court’s review.
I. Legal Standard
Where objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report are filed, the court must conduct
a de novo review of the contested portions of the report, Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099,
1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)), provided the objections are both
timely and specific, Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir. 1984). In making its de novo
review, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the factual findings or
legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Owens v. Beard, 829
F. Supp. 736, 738 (M.D. Pa. 1993). Although the review is de novo, the statute permits the
court to rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.
See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675–76 (1980); Goney, 749 F.2d at 7; Ball v.
United States Parole Comm’n, 849 F. Supp. 328, 330 (M.D. Pa. 1994). Uncontested
portions of the report may be reviewed at a standard determined by the district court. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985); Goney, 749 F.2d at 7. At the very least, the court
should review uncontested portions for clear error or manifest injustice. See, e.g., Cruz v.
Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375, 376–77 (M.D. Pa. 1998). As such, the Court reviews the portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which the Petitioner objects de novo. The remainder
of the Report and Recommendation is reviewed for clear error.
Souleman makes five (5) objections to Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s Report and
Recommendation. Therefore, I will review de novo the Report and Recommendation as to
these particular objections, but will adopt the remainder of the Report and Recommendation
after having found no clear error.
Souleman’s Removal from the United States on August 16, 2011
Souleman first objects to Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s statements that Souleman had
been previously removed from the United States on August 16, 2011.
Magistrate Judge Blewitt mentioned in footnote one of his Report and Recommendation that
Souleman had filed two previous habeas corpus petitions with the Court, the most recent of
which was denied as moot because Souleman had been removed from the United States
on August 16, 2011. While not relevant to the instant matter, the Court notes that the
aforementioned habeas corpus petition was denied as moot because Souleman was no
longer in ICE custody but in the custody of the Attorney General. See Souleman v. Holder,
3:11-CV-1347, 2012 WL 32922 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2012) (Caputo, J.) aff'd sub nom.
Souleman v. Attorney Gen. U.S.A., 12-1154, 2012 WL 1144304 (3d Cir. Apr. 6, 2012). In
particular, that earlier matter explained that the United States had attempted to remove
Souleman, but was prevented by his physical resistance. The Court notes this inaccuracy
in the Report and Recommendation, but will deny this objection as irrelevant to the instant
matter which concerns an alleged assault and deprivation of legal materials.
Souleman’s MRI Results
Souleman has attached a medical report to his Objection and states that “[r]esults
from the MRI show a cyst on the brain from the physical altercation.” (Objection at 3.) The
relevance of this objection is unclear.
While Souleman may well have medical
documentation to substantiate his claims beyond the pleading stage, these facts are not yet
necessary to support his claims. Moreover, the claims for which these facts may eventually
be relevant–excessive force, failure to protect, and denial of medical care–were all left
undisturbed by the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, this objection will be denied.
Grievances Written by Eyewitnesses
In his third and fourth objections, Souleman represents that he has included with his
objection two inmate grievances that were written by eyewitnesses to the assault and that
he has five eyewitness who are apparently willing to testify on his behalf. As above, such
facts are not yet necessary for Souleman’s Complaint to survive this initial screening stage.
Moreover, the claims for which these facts may be eventually relevant–excessive force,
failure to protect, and denial of medical care–were all left undisturbed by the Report and
Recommendation. Therefore, this objection will be denied.
Upon review of Plaintiff Souleman’s objections to Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s Report
and Recommendation, the Court finds no error and will adopt the Report and
Recommendation in full. An appropriate order follows.
June 12, 2012
/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge
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?