Tinsley v. Bittenbender

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry).Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 1/31/17. (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Opinion(s))(bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THEODORE TINSLEY,

:

Plaintiff

:

v.

:

KEVIN BITTENBENDER,

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-2505
(JUDGE MANNION)
Defendant

:
MEMORANDUM

I. Background
Theodore Tinsley, an inmate formerly confined in the Schuylkill Federal
Correctional Institution, (“FCI-Schuylkill”), Minersville, Pennsylvania, filed this
pro se Bivens1 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. (Doc. 1, complaint). The
sole Defendant named is Kevin Bittenbender, FCI-Schuylkill Hearing
Examiner. Plaintiff challenges three misconduct hearings in which Defendant
Bittenbender was the hearing examiner. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that
on February 29, 2006, March 25, 2008 and September 2, 2014, Defendant
Bittenbender coerced Plaintiff “under duress” to plead guilty to misconduct,
and sanctioning him to loss of privileges, disciplinary housing and
disallowance of good conduct time. Id. For relief, Plaintiff seeks damages for

1

Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971). A Bivens-type action is the federal counterpart to an action
filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Paton v. LaPrade, 524 F.2d 82 (3d Cir.
1975); Farmer v. Carlson, 685 F. Supp. 1335, 1338 (M.D. Pa. 1988)(Nealon,
J.)

Intimidation of Victim, Unlawful Restraint, Tampering With Records,
Involuntary Servitude, Criminal Coercion and Securing Execution of
Documents by Deception. Id.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PLRA”) obligates the
Court to engage in a screening process. See Vieux v. Smith, 2007 WL
1650579(M.D. Pa.).
Section 1915A provides:
(a) Screening. The court shall review, before docketing if feasible or, in any
event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal. On review, the court shall identify cognizable
claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint if the
complaint—
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief against defendant who is immune from
such relief.
28 U.S.C. §1915A. The complaint will now be reviewed pursuant to the
screening provisions of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the instant
complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant 28 U.S.C.
§1915A.

2

II. Discussion
The sanctions levied against Tinsley during his disciplinary hearing,
were all imposed as a result of prison misconduct. As such, the Court finds
that any Fifth Amendment claim regarding his disciplinary hearing is barred
under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520
U.S. 641 (1997).2 Under some circumstances, a prisoner may bring a Bivens
claim for monetary damages based on the denial of due process during a
prison disciplinary hearing. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554 (1974)
(stating that plaintiff’s §1983 “damages claim was ... properly before the
District Court and required determination of the validity of the procedures
employed for imposing sanctions, including loss of good time, for flagrant or
serious misconduct”). However, such due process claims cannot be brought
in a Bivens action where the claims “necessarily imply the invalidity of the
punishment imposed” unless the plaintiff shows that the sanctions have been
overturned. See Balisok3, 520 U.S. at 648 (finding claims for declaratory and

2

While Heck, and Balisok all involved §1983 cases, courts have extended
their holdings to Bivens actions. See Lora-Pena v. F.B.I., 529 F.3d 503, 506 n.
2 (3d Cir.2008) (“Although Heck involved a §1983 action by a state prisoner, the
reasoning in Heck has been applied to bar Bivens claims” (citing Williams v. Hill
, 74 F.3d 1339, 1341 (D.C Cir. 1996)(per curiam)).
3

In Edwards v. Balisok, the Supreme Court applied the lessons of Heck to
a state prisoner action, seeking compensatory and punitive damages,
challenging the constitutionality of procedures used in a prison disciplinary
proceeding that resulted in the loss of good-time credits, but not necessarily
(continued...)
3

monetary relief based on allegations that plaintiff was denied opportunity to
present a defense and that hearing officer was biased could not be brought
pursuant to §1983); Heck, 512 U .S. at 486-87 (“We hold that, in order to
recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,
or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
conviction or sentence invalid, a §1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction
or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive
order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. §2254.”). Plaintiff’s complaint fails to contain any
allegation indicating that any of the three challenged misconducts have been
reversed or expunged.
Before dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, the Court must grant the Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint
unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State
Hospital, 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3rd Cir. 2002). Because there has been no prior
challenge to Plaintiff’s misconducts, the Court concludes that amendment would

3

(...continued)
challenging the result and not seeking the restoration of the good-time credits.
Again, the Court emphasized that such a claim is not cognizable under §1983
if a favorable outcome would necessarily imply the invalidity of the challenged
judgment, there the disciplinary finding and punishment. 520 U.S. at 646-8.

4

be futile. As such, the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and
the case will be closed. A separate Order will be issued.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
Dated:

January 31, 2017

O:\Mannion\shared\MEMORANDA - DJ\CIVIL MEMORANDA\2016 MEMORANDA\16-2505-01.wpd

5