FRAZIER v. COOPER et al
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER that Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint before July 14, 2014. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment 18 be DISMISSED AS MOOT in light of the Order that Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint. Following the filing of the Amended Complaint, Defendants will be given the opportunity to file a dispositive motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on 6/30/14. (lrw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHNNIE W. FRAZIER,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
WILLIAM COOPER, et al,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 13-25 Erie
Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter1
Plaintiff, a federal inmate acting pro se, initiated this civil rights action on January 23,
2013. As Defendants to this action, Plaintiff named: Senior Chaplain William Cooper; Associate
Warden S.L. Nolan; Lt. Michael Murphy; Captain Olsen, and Warden Archie B. Longley.
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated his constitutional rights
in the following ways:
Defendant William Cooper continued to deliberately violate Bureau of Prisons
policy and Plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
After being notified by Plaintiff via administrative remedies (BP-8 & BP-9), he
threatened Plaintiff with having me placed in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) if I
continued to write him up. This event took place approximately in mid-2010.
Defendant S.L. Nolan, threatened me a few days later outside of the dinning [sic]
hall when I approached her with Chaplain Cooper’s conduct in hopes that she
would assist in correcting this situation. Instead, she stated “the Moors have been
nothing but trouble for her since she has been there, and the easiest way for her to
fix my problem was to get rid of me.” I attempted to explain that I had done
nothing wrong but she interrupted and said, “I have no compassion for you
American Muslims” and walked away from me. She directly participated and
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have voluntarily
consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct proceedings in this case, including
the entry of a final judgment.
1
1
deliberated [sic] violated Bureau of Prisons policy and Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights after becoming aware of the facts. I was told she gave the order to “get rid
of him” i.e. Plaintiff. Lt. Murphy carried out that order.
Defendant Michael Murphy, directly participated and violated my constitutional
rights after he became aware of the illegal violations. He is responsible for not
allowing me “due process” while investigating Plaintiff and intentionally created
a “false” SIS Report that was used to justify a “Disruptive activity,” “Close
Supervision Transfer” and as a direct result, the Plaintiff has suffered due to
numerous informal punishments. His report was concluded 8-3-2011.
Defendant Olsen, learned of Plaintiff’s Bureau of Prisons and constitutional rights
that were being violated and was questioned by Plaintiff personally about not
being given “due process” and failed to take corrective action against the illegal
conduct by staff under his supervision. He signed off on the false transfer request
8-4-2011.
Defendant Archie B. Longley, became aware of these violations and was “grossly
negligent” in the managing of staff under his supervision. He signed off on the
false transfer request 8-15-2011.
ECF No. 1 (factual allegations excerpted in their entirety). As relief, Plaintiff seeks declaratory,
compensatory and punitive damages.
In response to the Complaint, Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative, for summary judgment. ECF No. 18. Defendants argue for dismissal of the complaint
in its entirety based upon Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Next,
Defendants argue that the claims against Defendants Cooper and Nolan should be dismissed
because, inter alia, the statute of limitations has expired and Plaintiff fails to establish any Equal
Protection claim that these Defendants discriminated again him based on his religion.
Additionally, Defendant Murphy should be dismissed because the allegations against him do not
state a due process claim, and the claims against Defendants Olsen and Longley fail because
there is no allegation they personally violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Finally,
Defendants argue that they are entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity.
2
Plaintiff has filed a brief in opposition to the pending motion to dismiss. ECF No. 22. In
his brief, Plaintiff significantly expands on the sparse factual allegations contained in the
Original Complaint. Although not specifically alleged in his Original Complaint, Plaintiff argues
that Defendants acted with a retaliatory motive and express desire to limit the practice of his
religion. Plaintiff explains that he only became aware of some of the acts and motivations of
Defendants after he received information through the Freedom of Information Act following his
transfer to another federal institution in California. Plaintiff provides evidence in support of his
opposition brief. Defendants have not filed any reply to Plaintiff’s opposition.
Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, and as such, this Court must liberally construe his filings. See
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (pro se pleadings, Ahowever inartfully pleaded,@
must be held to Aless stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.@).2 In the
interests of fairness and judicial economy, this Court will allow Plaintiff to file an Amended
Complaint to make the factual allegations underlying the arguments of his opposition brief and
Defendants will be given the opportunity to file a motion to dismiss and/or motion for summary
judgment in response to the Amended Complaint.
The Amended Complaint must include all the claims against all the Defendants, fully
explaining which Defendant took what action and when that action was taken. See In re
Suprema Specialties, Inc. Sec. Litig., 438 F.3d 256, 276-77 (3d Cir. 2006) (a plaintiff must assert
all the essential factual background that would accompany “‘the first paragraph of any
If the court can reasonably read pleadings to state a valid claim on which the litigant could
prevail, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories,
poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant=s unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. See
Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364 (1982); United States ex rel. Montgomery v. Brierley, 414
F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969)(A[W]e should recognize that a habeas corpus petition prepared by a
prisoner without the aid of counsel may be inartfully drawn and should therefore be read >with a
measure of tolerance.=@); Smith v. U.S. District Court, 956 F.2d 295 (D.C.Cir. 1992); Freeman v.
Department of Corrections, 949 F.2d 360 (10th Cir. 1991).
2
3
newspaper story’ – that is, the ‘who, what, when, where and how’ of the event at issue.”). The
Amended Complaint must be a single stand-alone document that does not incorporate or
reference the Original Complaint.
An appropriate Order follows.
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHNNIE W. FRAZIER,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM COOPER, et al,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 13-25 Erie
Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter
ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of June, 2014;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint before July 14,
2014. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to
prosecute.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment [ECF
No. 18] be DISMISSED AS MOOT in light of the Order that Plaintiff file an Amended
Complaint. Following the filing of the Amended Complaint, Defendants will be given the
opportunity to file a dispositive motion.
/s/ Susan Paradise Baxter
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
United States Magistrate Judge
5
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?