The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anne E. Thompson United States District Judge
Brucestan T. Jordan, Pro Se # 18106075 Federal Correctional Institution P.O. Box 779800 Miami, FL 33177 THOMPSON, District Judge
Plaintiff, Brucestan Jordan, currently confined at the Federal Correctional Center, Miami, Florida, seeks to bring this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights in forma pauperis, without prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. At this time, the Court must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, to determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed.
On August 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed this complaint asserting violations of his constitutional rights, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff's complaint raises issues concerning the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act ("IAD"), speedy trial claims, detainer claims, and claims concerning Plaintiff's competency hearing and commitment to a mental hospital. Plaintiff also raises an access to courts claim, asserting obstruction or delay with his mail.
In particular, Plaintiff asserts that in April of 2008, he was transferred to the State of New Jersey under the IAD. (Complt., ¶ 19). Plaintiff challenged the jurisdiction of the New Jersey state courts. He was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation, and was found competent to stand trial. Plaintiff wanted to represent himself at trial, but was assigned a public defender, defendant Accettola. (Complt., ¶¶ 20-22).
Plaintiff's IAD was extended and he was again evaluated to see if he was competent to stand trial. At some point Plaintiff was committed to Trenton Psychiatric Hospital, and was held at the hospital for over 45 days. (Complt., ¶¶ 23-30). Plaintiff was found incompetent to stand trial, and was returned to federal prison until he was competent to stand trial. Plaintiff was returned to FCI Miami on or about May 4, 2009. (Complt., ¶ 32). Plaintiff claims that defendants did not provide him with appeal papers in a timely manner, and he was unable to appeal the competency order. (Complt., ¶ 33).
Plaintiff first alleges that his First Amendment access to courts rights were violated when his legal mail was withheld, preventing him from exhausting his state court remedies. (Complt., ¶¶ 34-37). Next, Plaintiff alleges that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated. (Complt.,
¶¶ 38-43). He also asserts that his attorneys, defendants from the public defender's office, should have moved to dismiss the indictment against him, and failed to properly represent him at the IAD hearings. (Complt., ¶¶ 41-52). Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks an award of monetary damages and injunctive relief.
A. Standards for Sua Sponte Dismissal
The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996), requires a district court to review a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis or seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity. The Court is required to identify cognizable claims and to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. This action is subject ...