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.

Schreane v. Thomas

United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

June 30, 2014

CLARENCE D. SCHREANE, Plaintiff
v.
WARDEN JEFF THOMAS, et al., Defendants

Caputo Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THOMAS M. BLEWITT United States Magistrate Judge

I. BACKGROUND.

On April 23, 2013, Plaintiff, Clarence D. Schreane, a prisoner confined at USP-Lewisburg, located in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed, pro se, a Bivens[1] civil rights action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff also filed two Motions to proceed in forma pauperis because his first Motion was not on the proper form. (Docs. 2 & 5). Plaintiff’s Complaint raised procedural due process, Eighth Amendment denial of medical care regarding kidney stones, and denial of access to the courts claims in violation of the United States Constitution. (Doc. 1). As relief, Plaintiff requested damages in the amount of five million dollars. (Id.). Plaintiff sued all Defendants, who are employees of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) only in their individual capacities.

Plaintiff named the following 12 Defendants: Warden Jeff Thomas; Mr. Chambers, Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”); F. Entzel, Captain; Correctional Officer (“CO”) Barbella; Ms. Heath, Special Investigation Agent (“SIA”); CO Shivery; Mr. Jordan, DHO; Mr. Brown, Health Services Administrator (“HSA”); CO R. Haines; Jeff Campbell, BOP Southeast Regional Office Attorney; unnamed BOP Administrative Remedy Coordinator, Southeast Regional Office; and Harrell Watts, Administrator for BOP National Inmate Appeals.

On May 7, 2013, the Court issued an Order and granted Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and directed service of Plaintiff’s Complaint on Defendants. (Doc. 8). The Summons was issued and the 11 named Defendants were served. (Docs. 13-22). Unnamed Defendant BOP Administrative Remedy Coordinator, Southeast Regional Office, was not initially served since Plaintiff failed to identify this Defendant.

On July 22, 2013, all 12 Defendants jointly filed a Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and 56(b). (Doc. 24). Counsel for Defendants indicated in the Motion that Defendant unnamed BOP Administrative Remedy Coordinator, Southeast Regional Office was Craig Simmons.

On August 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 29). On August 21, 2013, we issued a Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 35). Also, on September 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Doc. 35 Order denying his Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 37).

Further, on September 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to amend his Complaint to add a new Defendant, i.e., CO Fleeger, to his Complaint. (Doc. 39). On October 4, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay the Court’s decision regarding Plaintiff’s Doc. 39 Motion to amend his Complaint to add a new Defendant to his Complaint and, to grant them a 14-day extension of time to file their opposition brief after Congress has restored the lapse of appropriations in the funding for the Department of Justice. (Doc. 43). On September 23, 2013, we issued a Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Doc. 35 Order denying his Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 40).

On October 18, 2013, we issued an Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) regarding Defendants jointly filed Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and 56(b) and recommended the following:

Based on the above, it is respectfully recommended that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (Doc. 24) be GRANTED in its entirety with respect to all of Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants. It is recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint only with respect to his First Amendment denial of access to courts claim. It is also recommended that Plaintiff‘s Motion to amend his Complaint to add a new Defendant (Doc. 39) be DENIED. Further, it is recommended that Defendants’ Motion to Stay the Court’s decision regarding Plaintiff’s Doc. 39 Motion (Doc. 43) be DENIED as MOOT.

(Doc. 44).

On December 6, 2013, the Court adopted our R&R in its entirety. (Doc. 52). On January 10, 2014, the Court vacated the December 6, 2013 Order (Doc. 52) and allowed Plaintiff until January 31, 2014 to file Objections to the R&R. (Doc. 56). On February 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation and a Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Docs. 62 & 63).

On May 6, 2014, the Court filed a Memorandum and Order as Ordering follows:

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 44) is ADOPTED as Follows:
(A) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (Doc. 24) is GRANTED.
(B) Plaintiff’s claims against the currently named Defendants are DISMISSED.
(C) Plaintiff has twenty-eight (28) days from the date of entry of this Order to file an amended complaint stating a First Amendment denial of access to the courts claim against the currently named Defendants.
(2) Plaintiff may seek leave to amend his pleading to assert claims against individuals not named as Defendants in this action within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of entry of this Order.
(3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his Complaint to add a New Defendant (Doc. 39) is DENIED.
(4) Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 43) is DENIED as moot.
(5) The matter is RECOMMITTED to Magistrate Judge Blewitt for ...

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.