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.

Camino v. Tice

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

February 14, 2018

JOSEPH LOUIS CAMINO, Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC TICE, et al., Defendants.

          Rambo, Judge.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Susan E. Schwab, United States Chief Magistrate Judge.

         I. Introduction.

         The plaintiff, Joseph Louis Camino (“Camino”), a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint (doc. 1) and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 8). Camino's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, was granted. Doc. 11 at 1, 11. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the complaint was reviewed and it was concluded that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and failed to comply with Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1. Camino was granted leave to file an amended complaint by December 19, 2017. See id. at 11. To date, Camino has failed to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, it is recommended that Camino's complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend.

         II. Factual Background and Procedural History.

         On June 21, 2017, Camino filed a complaint consisting of more than 100 pages, naming six wardens from different correctional institutions: (1) Eric Tice, Warden of SCI, Huntington; (2) Kevin Kauffman Warden of SCI Smithfield; (3) Mark Cappozza, Warden of SCI Pittsburgh; (4) Laurel Harry, Warden of SCI Camp Hill; (5) Jay Lane, Warden of SCI Fayette; and (6) Tom McGinley, Warden of SCI Coal Township. Doc. 1 at 1-2. Camino notes that he brought an action against four of the aforementioned correctional institutions in 1998-1999, for the torture and harassment inflicted on him, but the case was dismissed by then Chief Judge Rambo. Id. at 3. Throughout his complaint, Camino describes his experiences at the six correctional institutions, and he describes his bizarre thoughts in redundant and graphic detail. See, e.g., id. at 10-11, 15, 23-24, 49-52. Camino aimlessly narrates his altercations with various guards, often failing to specify when each incident occurred, who committed the alleged acts, and what injury, if any, the named defendants caused. See, e.g., id. at 6, 49-52, 54, 57, 61-62, 64-65.

         Throughout his narration, Camino alleges that he was assaulted, tortured, or harassed by other prisoners or prison staff (see, e.g., id. at 20, 49, 76; doc. 1-1 at 5, 11), and that he was involved in numerous fights at different correctional facilities (see, e.g., doc. 1 at 31, 77, 91). Camino alleges that all these incidents began with a “girl that lives across the street from E-block housing unit at SCI Huntington [sic], ” in whom he seemingly had a strong interest. Id. at 3, 12, 16, 18. Camino asserts that the prison guards used his interest in this girl to induce him into fighting with black inmates. See id. at 13, 16, 18, 24, 40. Camino states that, as he was told, someone with high authority in the Department of Corrections intended or required him to get into fights with black prisoners. Id. at 29, 43. Throughout the entirety of Camino's 135-page complaint, Camino fails to allege sufficient facts that connect any of the alleged wrongdoing with the named defendants. Nonetheless, Camino demands 80 million dollars. Doc. 1-1 at 34.

         III. Discussion.

         A. Screening of Prisoner Plaintiffs' Complaints-Standard of Review.

         Courts have a statutory obligation to conduct a preliminary review of pro se complaints brought by prisoner-plaintiffs given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Since Camino is a prisoner, his complaint is reviewed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:

(a) Screening.-The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal.-On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be ...

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.