United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Lail, #11572-057 Plaintiff Pro se.
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D. JUDGE.
Ernest Lail, a prisoner presently incarcerated at Federal
Correctional Institution (“FCI”) Fairton in
Fairton, New Jersey, seeks to bring a civil rights complaint
pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics
Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against FCI Fairton and
various staff members employed there and at other Bureau of
Prisons (“B.O.P.”) facilities. Plaintiff alleges
a variety of grievances in his Complaint, including theft,
physical abuse, mail tampering, and unlawful detention.
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 reasons set forth below, the Court will
dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for failure to state
a claim, with leave to amend. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1).
filing his initial Complaint on October 11, 2016, ECF No. 1,
Plaintiff thereafter provided additional information
regarding his claims by letter and exhibits, ECF No. 6. The
Court will construe both documents together as the Complaint
for the purposes of this screening.
alleges that in January 2006, B.O.P. staff opened
Plaintiff's mail and stole from it stock certificates and
a patent for an electrical magnetic generator, from which,
according to Plaintiff, B.O.P. staff continue to profit. ECF
No. 6 at 2. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that B.O.P. staff
are utilizing Plaintiff's credit card, which has a value
of one billion dollars, ECF No. 6 at 9, and that
approximately $965, 000.00 has been stolen by B.O.P.
employees, ECF No. 1 at 2, from Plaintiff's bank account,
see ECF No. 6 at 3.
also alleges that between September 2008 and September 2009,
BOP staff created and sold for a profit to various television
networks a mini-series starring Plaintiff. ECF No. 6 at
In addition, Plaintiff alleges that BOP staff put his music
on CDs in 2011. ECF No. 6 at 6.
Plaintiff's allegations regarding mistreatment and abuse,
Plaintiff alleges that between 2010 and 2011, he was the
victim of unspecified brutality as well as “high speed
camera and electricity to face and eyes.” ECF No. 6 at
7. In addition, Plaintiff states that “[s]ince January
of 2009 FCI Estill, S.C.[, ] Lt. Watson and B.O.P. staff have
used electricity on me and abused me 24 hours of every day
for eight years.” ECF No. 6 at 8. Plaintiff also states
that he received serious burns from “a taser and high
level stun gun [from] date 1/15/2009 until 2012.” ECF
No. 1 at 2.
Plaintiff alleges that B.O.P. employees interfered with his
incoming and outgoing mail, which prevented him from
accessing the courts in violation of the First Amendment.
See ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff provides detailed
lists of his mailing attempts which include each date on
which Plaintiff mailed a letter. The most recent date on
which Plaintiff attempted to mail a letter to an attorney or
to various government agencies and officials appears to be
August 5, 2013. See ECF No. 6-1, at 19-27 (listing
addressees and dates of attempted mailing).
as to Plaintiff's unlawful detention, Plaintiff alleges
that his sentence was to end on August 21, 2016, however he
is still being incarcerated. ECF No. 1 at 1. Given
Plaintiff's allegation regarding his detention, the Court
construes his claim to be one challenging the execution of
his sentence. Such a claim must be brought as a petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
See Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir.
2001) (noting that federal prisoners who wish to challenge
the execution of their sentence must proceed under §
2241). Furthermore, as Plaintiff's sole requested remedy
is monetary damages, this claim would be barred pursuant to
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), which
bars monetary damage claims unless the allegedly
unconstitutional imprisonment has been, inter alia, reversed
on appeal or called into question by the issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus. To the extent that Plaintiff wishes to
challenge the execution of his sentence, he must file a
separate petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241.
1915(e)(2) and 1915A require a court to review complaints
prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is proceeding
in forma pauperis and in which a plaintiff is
incarcerated. The Court must sua sponte dismiss any
claim that is frivolous, is 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. This action
is subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A because
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and is
also incarcerated. See ECF No. 5 (granting in
forma pauperis application).
survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a
claim, the complaint must allege “sufficient factual
matter” to show that the claim is facially plausible.
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir.
2009). “‘A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.'” Fair Wind
Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 n.3 (3d
Cir. 2014) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009)). “[A] pleading that offers ‘labels or
conclusions' or ‘a ...