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.

Redd v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

October 29, 2018

DERRICK VINCENT REDD, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendants.

          Derrick Vincent Redd, No. 49502-083 FCI - Fairton Plaintiff Pro se

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         Plaintiff 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), [1] against the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the United States of America.

         At this 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).

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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.

         This 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.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Sections 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).

         To 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 ...


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.