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.

Pinson v. Oddo

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

January 24, 2017

JEREMY PINSON, Plaintiff
v.
L.J. ODDO, et al., Defendants JEREMY PINSON, Plaintiff
v.
ELIZABETH SANTOS, et al., Defendants

          MEMORANDUM

          SYLVIA H. RAMBO, United States District Judge

         Background

         On April 1, 2016, Plaintiff Jeremy V. Pinson, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary at Allenwood, White Deer, Pennsylvania (“USP-Allenwood”)[1](Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate number 16267-064) filed a civil rights action, Civil No. 1:16-CV-00565, pro se pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).[2] (Doc. 1, Civil No. 16-565.) Named as Defendants are L. J. Oddo, Warden at USP-Allenwood; Mr. Rodarmel, a Unit Manager at USP-Allenwood; Joseph Norwood, Northeast Regional Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. (Id.) Pinson is alleged to be a transgender woman undergoing hormone therapy who is being retaliated by the Defendants for refusing to be housed in the general population. (Id.) Pinson claims that in 2008 she cooperated with law enforcement who were investigating the following gangs: Aryan Brotherhood, Mexican Mafia, Texas Syndicate and Dirty White Boys. (Id.) As a result of her cooperation Pinson claims that the head of each gang ordered that she be “stabbed on sight.” (Id.) While confined in a prison in California in 2008, Pinson claims a prison gang attempted to kill her and that as a result she sued Defendant Norwood. (Id.) Pinson states that the case against Norwood arising out of the attempt by gang members to kill her is still pending and that Defendant Norwood was deposed in that case in February, 2016.[3] (Id.) She claims that Norwood in concert with Defendants Oddo and Rodarmel are retaliating against her by restricting her telephone privileges, limiting the amount of paper she receives and denying her postage to send out legal documents. (Id.) She contends that they have attempted to coerce her into being placed in the general population knowing that a prison gang has threatened her life. (Id.) She alleges that staff have repeatedly stated that “Norwood wants you boiled in oil over that California case.” (Id.) Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and an authorization to have funds deducted from her prison account to pay the filing fee in installments. (Docs. 2, 3.)

         In the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2, Civil No. 16-565) Pinson stated under penalty of perjury that prior to the filing of the complaint she did file 3 or more actions or appeals in a court of the United States that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. However, Pinson claims that she is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. In support of that claim Pinson merely states as follows: “People who've tried to kill me before are actively threatening to rape/kill me again and defendants are deliberately subjecting me to that danger.” (Doc. 2, at 2, Civil No. 16-565.) The case was inadvertently served on Defendants without first addressing the issue of whether Pinson's complaint should be dismissed without prejudice under the three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

         On January 18, 2017, Pinson (inmate number 16267-064) filed another civil complaint under Bivens. Pinson v. Santos, et al., Civil No. 1:17-CV-00103. In that complaint Pinson names as Defendants two individuals employed at USP-Allenwood, a psychiatrist employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and the BOP. Pinson in the complaint alleged that Defendants are denying her sex reassignment surgery and retaliating against her. (Doc. 1, at 6, Civil No. 17-103.) As relief Pinson requests injunctive relief and $1.00 in compensatory damages. (Id. at 9.) Along with the complaint, Pinson filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 2, Civil No. 17-103.)

         In the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2, Civil No. 17-103) Pinson stated under penalty of perjury that prior to the filing of the complaint she did file 3 or more actions or appeals in a court of the United States that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. However, Pinson claims that she is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. In support of that claim Pinson merely states as follows: “See Complaint.” (Id. at 2.)

         Pinson admits that he has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Furthermore, an electronic search on PACER confirms that prior to filing the above-captioned cases Pinson did file 3 or more cases that were dismissed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (April 26, 1996)(“PLRA”).[4] In fact that review reveals that Pinson has filed at least 43 prisoner rights lawsuits (denoted by Nature of Suit number 550) and more than 130 civil actions.[5] The court will now enumerate some of Pinson's prior cases which were dismissed under the screening provisions of the PLRA.

         On June 1, 2009, Pinson (inmate number 16267-064) filed a civil rights complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Pinson v. Pineiro, et al., No. 5:09-CV-00244-WTH-GRJ. On July 29, 2009, an order was issued dismissing the case with prejudice and it was specifically stated in the order that “[t]he dismissal of this case counts as a strike for purposes of 1915(g).” Pinson v. Pineiro, et al., No. 5:09-CV-00244-WTH-GRJ, slip op. at 32 (M.D. Fl. July 29, 2009)(Doc. 10)

         On June 24, 2009, Pinson (inmate number 16267-064) filed a civil rights complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Pinson v. Chipi, et al., No. 5:09-CV-00283-WTH-GRJ. On July 29, 2009, an order was issued dismissing the case with prejudice and it was specifically stated in the order that “[t]he dismissal of this case counts as a strike for purposes of 1915(g).” Pinson v. Chipi, et al., No. 5:09-CV-00283-WTH-GRJ, slip op. at 32 (M.D. Fl. July 29, 2009)(Doc. 7)

         On July 12, 2010, Pinson (inmate number 16267-064) filed a civil rights complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Pinson v. Elston, No. 1:10-CV-01847-SLB-HGD. On January 6, 2012, a memorandum and order were issued dismissing the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and it was specifically stated in the order that “[t]he dismissal of this action is a dismissal countable for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Pinson v. Elston, No. 1:10-CV-01847-SLB-HGD, final judgment (N.D. Ala. Jan. 6, 2012)(Doc. 14).

         On September 13, 2010, Pinson (inmate number 16267-064) filed a civil rights complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Pinson v. Rathman, et al., No. 1:10-CV-02469-AKK-HGD. On June 30, 2011, a memorandum and order were issued dismissing the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and it was specifically stated in the order that “[t]he dismissal of this action is a dismissal countable for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Pinson v. Rathman, et al., No. 1:10-CV-02469-AKK-HGD, final judgment (N.D. Ala. June 30, 2011)(Doc. 24).

         Pinson has also had an appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed as frivolous. Pinson v. Chipi, et al., No. 10-12235-B, order of dismissal, at 5 (11th Cir. Feb 2, 2011).

         For the reasons set forth below, the above-captioned cases filed by Pinson in this district on August 1, 2016, and January 18, 2017, will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Furthermore, the pending motion to dismiss and/or for summary ...


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.