United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Derrick Vincent Redd, No. 49502-083 FCI - Fairton Plaintiff
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Derrick Vincent Redd, a prisoner presently incarcerated at
Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) Fairton
in Fairton, New Jersey, has filed a Complaint which the Court
will construe to be a civil rights action pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics
Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),  against the Federal Bureau
of Prisons and the United States of America.
time, the Court must review Plaintiff's filing, 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 reason set forth below, the
Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for
failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(b)(iii) and 1915A(b)(2).
filed a Complaint and designated it as arising under the
Federal Tort Claims Act. ECF No. 1. The Complaint itself does
not contain factual allegations but an exhibit to the
Complaint provides as follows:
At issue is the fact that 30 plus days ago, an inmate who
classifies themselves as transgender came to Delta Unit and
immediately placed into my cell. At that time, I was told
that she was being placed into my cell at the direction of
AWO-Johnson. After several weeks of requesting the
inmate's removal which was premised upon inappropriate
behavior on their part with other inmates, I was ignored and
the issue went unresolved.
Around the 26th or 29th of September, 2017, I was brought
informally before, the Captain, Case/Unit Managers, and Dr.
Jabota, and accused of conduct that would normally get an
inmate brought up on charges and placed into the SHU.
However, I was accused of inappropriate behavior with my
cell-mate which was not supported with anything other than
the accusation. The accusations lodged against me were
vicious, malicious, and mean-spirited. Brought by an
individual who had not been in Delta Unit for more than 30
days, against myself who has been in Delta Unit for nine (9)
years without incident, and who works very, very hard in
helping with the orderly running of this institution as it
relates to all things laundry. In other words, I have been an
outstanding inmate for 9 years without so much as a blemish
on my record, only to have my character tarnished by an
individual who has been caught red handed committing
inappropriate acts with another inmate on the recreation
yard, and left alone as if she could do not wrong. My due
process has been violated because I was sanctioned without
due process (a formal hearing), no incident report or proof
other than a known liar's word.
ECF No. 1-1 at 2-3.
exhibit appears to be an administrative remedy form under the
Federal Tort Claims Act. Under the section for
“Personal Injury/Wrongful Death” on the form,
Plaintiff describes his injury as follows: “The basis,
nature of my personal injury is premised upon a blatant
denial of my Constitutional Rights to Due Process, libel,
slander, false accusations, retaliation, negligence in
failing to properly investigate said false accusations at my
detriment.” Id. at 2. In addition, as for
relief, Plaintiff requests “$50, 000 for the blatant
disregard and denial of my constitutional rights to due
process, libel, slander, false accusations, retaliation and
negligence in failing to properly investigate said false
accusation.” ECF No. 1 at 6.
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 ...