JEAN-PIERRE v. BUREAU OF PRISONS et al

Filing 77

MEMORANDUM ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 44 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 49 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED t hat Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 59 ) is treated solely as a response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation dated February 13, 2012 (ECF No. 73 ) is adopted as the opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Judgment (ECF No. 76 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court mark this case CLOSED. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4 (a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 3/2/2012. (dlg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STEVEN JEAN-PIERRE,
Plaintiff,
V.

BUREAU OF PRISONS; JOHN
YOST, Warden, FCI Loretto; and
MARYANN PALKO, FCI Loretto
Religious Chaplain,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 09-266J
District Judge Kim R. Gibson
Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
ECF Nos. 44, 49, 59, 73, 76

MEMORANDUM ORDER

The above captioned case was initiated on October 8, 2009, by the filing of a civil rights
complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. It was referred to a magistrate judge for
pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and
Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges.
Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 3) asserts liability pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents ofthe Federal Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that during the
time he was incarcerated at FCI-Loretto, Defendants discriminated against him based on his
Rastafarian religious beliefs. Specifically, he alleges violations of his rights under the First
Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because Defendant
Chaplain Maryann Palko removed him from the Certified Religious Diet Program on June 3,
2008, and Defendant Warden John Yost refused to reinstate him in the program.
On April 27, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion
for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 18.) A Report and Recommendation was entered on July 30,
I

201 0, wherein it was recommended that Defendants' motion be treated solely as a motion to
dismiss and be granted as to Plaintiffs claims against the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and
against the individual Defendants in their official capacity but denied in all other respects
without prejudice to Defendants refilling a proper summary judgment motion and allowing
Plaintiff to conduct relevant discovery. (ECF No. 26.) After Plaintiff filed objections to the
Report and Recommendation, the report was adopted by Memorandum Order dated September
27, 2010. (ECF Nos. 27, 28.)
Defendants filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs Complaint on June 6,
2011, and Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Opposition to Defendants'
Answer and Affirmative Defenses on July 27,2011. (ECF Nos. 42, 44.) On August 1, 2011,
Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 49), and on October 3, 2011,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 59).
On February 13, 2012, Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan entered

a

Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 73) recommending the following: (1) Plaintiffs Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings be denied; (2) Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative,
Motion for Summary Judgment be treated solely as a response to Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment and be denied as moot; and (3) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
be granted. Plaintiff was served with the Report and Recommendation at his listed address and
advised that he had until March 1, 2012, to file written objections. In response; Plaintiff filed
written objections on February 28, 2012. (ECF No. 75.) Plaintiffs objections do not undermine
the recommendation ofthe Magistrate Judge.

2

Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Stay Judgment (ECF No. 76), whereby he requests that the
Court stay judgment until he receives documents he has requested pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act which can "prove [his] case." Generally, "the power to stay proceedings is
incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes in its
docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants." Landis v. N.
Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). In order for a stay to be granted, the movant must

demonstrate the likelihood of prevailing on the merits, that the movant will suffer irreparable
harm if the stay is denied, that the other party will not be substantially harmed by the stay, and
that the public interest will be served by granting the stay. See Republic of Philippines v.
Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 949 F.2d 653, 659 (3d Cir. 1991). In this case, Plaintiffhas failed to
demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits to support a stay of the Court's order
granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
The information that Plaintiff has allegedly requested pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act appears to be the FCI-Loretto Inmate Handbook and documents pertaining to
"the method that Defendant Palko used to reinstate ... inmates who were removed [from] the
[Certified Religious Diet] Program." (ECF No. 76 at 5.) He claims that this information would
conclusively show that Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment. Specifically, Plaintiff
contends that, contrary to Defendants' assertions, the FCI-Loretto Inmate Handbook does not
state that inmates who participate in the Certified Religious Diet Program can be suspended from
the program for removing food from the mess hall. Additionally, he claims that Defendant Palko
did not require other inmates to submit, prior to their reinstatement into the program, written
documentation from their faith groups stating that the Certified Religious Diet Program is a
requirement for their religion. However, Plaintiff's arguments are not new to the Court as they
3

were raised in his pleadings and considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge in her Report
and Recommendation. As such, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that there is a basis for the
Court to stay judgment.
After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the
Report and Recommendation, and the objections thereto, the following order is entered:

2N~

AND NOW, this_ day of March, 2012;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(ECF No. 44) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 49) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative,
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 59) is treated solely as a response to Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment and is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation dated February 13,
2012 (ECF No. 73) is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Stay Judgment (ECF No. 76) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court mark this case CLOSED.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(l) of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by
Rule 3 ofthe Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

4

Kim R. Gibson
United States District Judge

cc: Steven Jean-Pierre
49152-053
Allenwood Low
Federal Correctional Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. Box 1000
White Deer, PA 17887
Counsel of record.

5