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.

Conway v. Lindsay

June 24, 2008

ROBERT CONWAY, III, PLAINTIFF
v.
WARDEN CAMERON LINDSAY, ET AL. DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Chief Judge Kane

MEMORANDUM

I. BACKGROUND

Before the Court is a Bivens*fn1 -styled action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 filed by Plaintiff Robert Conway, III, an inmate presently confined at the United States Penitentiary at Canaan ("USP-Canaan") in Waymart, Pennsylvania. (Doc. No. 1.) Along with his complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.)

Named as defendants in the complaint are the following: Senior U.S. Judge Richard A. Enslen*fn2 ; Cameron Lindsay, Warden of USP-Canaan; F-Unit Manager Lindsay; SIS Lt. Kaszuba; UCC Dept. Staff Jeffery Nickerson of the Michigan Department of State; Regional Director D. Scott Dodrill; Government Agents; and Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff's claims appear to stem from Plaintiff's attempts to collect "government bonds," which he asserts are his property, from Judge Enslen and the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") as a result of the outcome of Plaintiff's criminal case before the Judge. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that he sought the government bonds, "[a]t a value of $2,000,000.00 each bond, with six for Federal Crimes would be $12,000,000.00 and the Court Appearance Bond at $500,000.00 then the Judgment & Sentence at $500,000.00 which would bring the total price to $13,000,000.00. But Plaintiff then times this by 35% which is the tax payment and the final price came to $4,550,000.00. All of this is done from my Case No. 1:96-cr-24(01)." (Doc. No. 1 at 2-3.) Plaintiff claims that all Defendants violated his constitutional rights when they placed him in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU") pending an investigation into Plaintiff's efforts to recover these bonds from Judge Enslen.

The complaint is presently before the Court for preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides:

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that --

(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or

(B) the action or appeal --

(i) is frivolous or malicious;

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For the reasons that follow, Judge Enslen and the BOP will be dismissed from the action and the Court will direct service of the complaint on the remaining defendants.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Claims Against Judicial ...


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.