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.

Bright Falodun v. Michael G. Olson

March 8, 2011

BRIGHT FALODUN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL G. OLSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. John E. Jones III

MEMORANDUM

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:

This pro se Bivens*fn1 action was initiated by Plaintiff Bright Falodun ("Plaintiff" or "Falodun"), an inmate confined at the United States Penitentiary at Allenwood ("USP Allenwood") in White Deer, Pennsylvania. This case is proceeding on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 18.)

Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on behalf of all Defendants. (Doc. 28.) For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion will be treated solely as a Motion to Dismiss under the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the Motion will be granted.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Falodun initiated this action by filing a Complaint on March 5, 2009. (Doc. 1.) Upon screening the Complaint under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, it was evident that Falodun failed to provide information to sufficiently identify Defendants, as well as specific allegations against each of them, and therefore, by Memorandum and Order dated June 16, 2009, his Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 10.) However, in light of his pro se status, the dismissal was without prejudice to Falodun's ability to file an amended complaint within twenty (20) days. (Id.)

Following an extension of time, on September 2, 2009, Falodun filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 14.) The Amended Complaint also failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and therefore, by Order dated December 14, 2009, Falodun was given a final opportunity to file an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days. (Doc. 17.) Service of Falodun's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 18), filed on January 7, 2010, was directed by Order dated March 11, 2010 (Doc. 19).

After requesting an extension of time, which was granted, on July 23, 2010, the instant Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, was filed on behalf of all Defendants. (Doc. 28.) On July 29, 2010, Falodun filed a document entitled "Objection to Government Response." (Doc. 29.) Following a request for an extension of time, which was granted, on August 17, 2010, Defendants filed a supporting brief (Doc. 33), a statement of material facts (Doc. 32), and supporting exhibits (Doc. 32-2). Falodun filed his opposition brief (Doc. 34) on August 20, 2010. On August 30, 2010, Defendants filed a reply brief (Doc. 35). Accordingly, the instant Motion is fully briefed and ripe for review.*fn2

II. ALLEGATIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Falodun identifies the Defendants to this action as follows in his Second Amended Complaint: (1) Michael G. Olson, Special Agent for the United States Secret Service; (2) Thomas Boyle, Special Agent for the United States Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Naturalization Services ("INS"); (3) Curtis J. Aljets, INS District Director; (4) Donald J. Monica (misidentified as Donald J. "Monra"), INS District Director; (5) Robert P. Wiemann*fn3 , INS Administrative Appeals Office Director; (6) Douglas Sabins (misidentified as Douglas "Salins"), INS Acting Assistant Field Office Director; (7) Michael Foote, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") Agent; and (8) an Unknown Examiner employed by INS.*fn4

In his Second Amended Complaint, Falodun alleges generally that, "[a]s a direct and proximate result of the acts of the defendants . . . [he] lost his Certificate of Citizenship, his natural rest and sleep, suffered pain and emotional trauma, depression, anxiety and ultimately lost his natural status." (Doc. 18 at 4 ¶ 19.)

He also alleges that Defendants Monica, Sabins, and Aljets each knew that he had a right to a revocation hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 342.4, 342.5, and that each of them "did knowingly and intentionally with bad purpose and ill motive embark upon Plaintiff's rights to procedural due process when they denied him the right to be heard and call witnesses, and confront any adverse witness against him, thereby denying his Fifth Amendment rights." (Id. ¶ 16.) He avers that, on April 21, 2003, Defendants Aljets and Monica "adopted the Examiner's recommendation and denied Plaintiff his Due Process Procedural rights." (Id. at 2 ¶¶ 12, 13.) He alleges that Defendant Sabins "while acting in his official capacity on June 3, 2009, [ ] adopted the Examiner's recommendation and denied Plaintiff his Due Process Procedural rights." (Id. at 3 ¶ 15.)

In addition, Falodun alleges that Defendants Aljets, Olson, Boyle, and Foote "knew or should have known their actions are criminal in nature" and that "each of them knowingly and intentionally with bad purpose and evil motive gave inflamatory [sic]; slanderous, false statements on Government documents." (Id. at 5 ¶ 17.) Falodun avers that, on January 15, 2002, Defendants Olson and Boyle made "false written statements and gave fraudulent information." (Id. at 2 ¶¶ 10-12.)

Falodun also alleges that, on August 20, 2002, an Unknown Examiner denied his right to procedural due process "by not permitting Plaintiff to defend and call witnesses in his behalf, and not ...


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.