Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Joel Jermaine Bacon v. Anne Klein Forensic Center

May 21, 2012

JOEL JERMAINE BACON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ANNE KLEIN FORENSIC CENTER, DEFENDANT. JOEL JERMAINE BACON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHRISTIE TODD WHITMAN, DEFENDANT. JOEL JERMAINE BACON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ALEX DAVIS, DEFENDANT. JOEL JERMAINE BACON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMESBURG DETENTION HOME FOR BOYS, DEFENDANT. JOEL JERMAINE BACON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES FORSYTHE, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joel A. Pisano United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Applies to All Actions

IT APPEARING THAT:

1. Plaintiff submitted his civil complaints in the above-captioned actions together with applications to proceed in forma pauperis. In addition, in each of these actions, Plaintiff submitted an application seeking appointment of pro bono counsel. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff -- for no stated reason -- submitted a letter in all of his cases before this Court requesting that the Court "throw away" those actions in which Plaintiff had not sought a pro bono attorney.*fn1

2. Plaintiff, a civilly committed individual, is party to another action commenced in this District. See Bacon v. Burns ("Bacon v. Burns"), Civil Action No. 10-5484 (JBS) (D.N.J. Oct 22, 2010). The Bacon v. Burns action was initiated on October 22, 2010, and assigned to Judge Jerome B. Simandle. See id., Docket Entry No. 1. The complaint in Bacon v. Burns, as well as the amended complaint filed in that matter on December 23, 2010, alleged that, during a certain period of Plaintiff's confinement, he was subjected to involuntary medication with the anti-psychotic drug Haldol in violation of his constitutional rights.

3. On October 25, 2010, Plaintiff submitted another civil complaint also asserting that his constitutional rights were violated by the same chain of involuntary medications. See Bacon v. Madnell ("Bacon v. Madnell"), Civil Action No. 10-5506 (JAP) (D.N.J. Oct. 25, 2010). This Court directed administrative termination of Bacon v. Madnell as duplicative of Bacon v. Burns. See Bacon v. Madnell, Civil Action No. 10-5506, Docket Entry No. 2. The Court explained to Plaintiff why such termination was warranted. See id.

4. On November 17 and 29, 2010, Plaintiff submitted two applications in Bacon v. Madnell, Civil Action No. 10-5506, one asserting this Court erred in directing termination of that action, and another requesting appointment of pro bono counsel. See id., Docket Entries Nos. 2 and 3.

5. On December 1, 2010, this Court denied Plaintiff's application for pro bono counsel, as well as his request to restore Bacon v. Madnell to the District's active docket. See id., Docket Entry No. 6. In conjunction with these determinations, the Court again explained why Bacon v. Madnell was duplicative of Bacon v. Burns. See id.

6. On February 8, 2011, Plaintiff submitted yet another civil complaint asserting that his rights were violated by the same chain of involuntary medications, see Bacon v. Adetunji, Civil Action No. 11-0706 (JBS) (D.N.J. Feb. 8, 2011), Docket Entry No. 1. See id. Because Plaintiff's complaint in Bacon v. Adetunji was subject to dismissal on the grounds already articulated twice by this Court in Bacon v. Madnell, Judge Simandle directed termination of Bacon v. Adetunji as duplicative. See Bacon v. Adetunji, Civil Action No. 11-0706, Docket Entry No. 2. That termination took place on March 21, 2011. See id. at 3. Consequently, only Plaintiff's initial proceeding, i.e., Bacon v. Burns, Civil Action No. 10-5484, remained pending.

7. On April 13, 2011, the defendants in Bacon v. Burns, Civil Action No. 10-5484, filed their first motion for summary judgment. See Bacon v. Burns, Civil Action No. 10-5484, Docket Entries Nos. 13 and 14. On November 15, 2011, Judge Simandle granted that motion in part and denied it in part, allowing the sole defendant remaining in Bacon v. Burns to file a supplemental motion.*fn2 See id., Docket Entries Nos. 25 and 26. That supplemental motion was filed on December 14, 2011. See id., Docket Entries Nos. 30 and 31. In February 2012, Judge Simandle appointed two attorneys to act as Plaintiff's pro bono counsel for the purposes of Bacon v. Burns, including Plaintiff's opposition to the supplemental motion, which is still pending before Judge Simandle as of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. See id., Docket Entries Nos. 35, 36 and 37 (appointing pro bono counsel), and Docket Entry No. 40 (extending Plaintiff's time to oppose).

8. While these developments were taking place, Plaintiff commenced six new actions in this District; specifically, Bacon v. Dupree, Civil Action No. 12-0784 (assigned to Judge Simandle),*fn3 and the five above-captioned matters (collectively, "Five Bacon Cases") assigned to the undersigned, i.e., Bacon v. Anne Klein Forensic Center ("Bacon v. AKFC"), Civil Action No. 12-0841; Bacon v. Whitman ("Bacon v. Whitman"), Civil Action No. 12-0842; Bacon v. Davis ("Bacon v. Davis"), Civil Action No. 12-0843; Bacon v. Jamesburg Detention Home for Boys ("Bacon v. Jamesburg"), Civil Action No. 12-0844; and Bacon v. Forsythe ("Bacon v. Forsythe"), Civil Action No. 12-0845.

9. As noted supra, Plaintiff duly submitted his in forma pauperis ("IFP") application in each of these Five Bacon Cases. In light of these submissions, the Court will grant Plaintiff IFP status for these Five Bacon Cases and will direct the Clerk to file Plaintiff's complaints in these matters without assessment of a filing fee, since Plaintiff is a civilly-committed person.

10. Plaintiff's allegations as stated in the Five Bacon Cases vary. Specifically:

a. In Bacon v. AKFC, Plaintiff asserts that he was "falsely convicted of crime and put in double jeopardy." [Civil Action No. 12-0841, Docket Entry No. 1.] In connection with that allegation, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.