United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
D. MARIANI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
April 23, 2018, Plaintiff, Raheem Louis-El, an inmate who, at
all relevant times, was housed at the United States
Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, initiated this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Doc. 1). Named as the
sole Defendant is Warden David J. Ebbert. Id.
Plaintiff s complaint states in toto:
This is a claim of assault and racial discrimination by
Bureau of Prison employee K. Solomon, occurring on April 15,
2018 between approximately 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm at
USP-Lewisburg. This officer shove me into my cell while I was
handcuffed behind my back and the video footage in (B2) Block
will verified this.
I hereby motion the court to put a restraining order on the
BOP specifically at USP-Lewisburg to not destroy the camera
footage. I also motion this court to subpoena Officer K.
Solomon's disciplinary record. I also motion the court
for a restraining order to prevent USP-Lewisburg staff from
obstructing the prison the prison grievance procedure. He has
been written up by prisoners several times for racial
discrimination. Also, this institution and its officers are
known for using excessive force against Moorish Americans
(sometimes referred to as African Americans). See Anthony
Meneyham v. United States of American,
I also ask for punishment against Officer K. Solomon fo the
fullest extent of the law. If there is no penalty imposed
then the officer's actions are justified which is why
this issue and others are ongoing! Penalties imposed shows
and verifies by action that the judicial system does not
tolerate racial discrimination nor assaults by officers based
on race which constitutes a hate crime!
If the Courts do not intervene and fix this problem which has
been ongoing for years, then the courts are okaying the
racial discrimination and assault being complained of because
the Bureau of Prison has shown that they will not do anything
about this problem. I hereby invoke 18 U.S.C. section 241!
Id. For relief, Plaintiff seeks $25, 000.00 in
pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for
summary judgment.(Doc. 28). The motion is fully briefed and
is ripe for disposition. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court will grant Defendant's motion.
Summary Judgment Standard of Review
summary adjudication, the court may dispose of those claims
that do not present a "genuine dispute as to any
material fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). "As to
materiality, ... [o]nly disputes over facts that might affect
the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly
preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing
the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
Once such a showing has been made, the non-moving party must
offer specific facts contradicting those averred by the
movant to establish a genuine issue of material fact.
Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871,
888 (1990). Therefore, the non-moving party may not oppose
summary judgment simply on the basis of the pleadings, or on
conclusory statements that a factual issue exists.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. "A party asserting
that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support
the assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in
the record ... or showing that the materials cited do not
establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or
that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to
support the fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A)-(B). In
evaluating whether summary judgment should be granted,
"[t]he court need consider only the cited materials, but
it may consider other materials in the record."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3). "Inferences should be drawn in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and where
the non-moving party's evidence contradicts the
movant's, then the non-movant's must be taken as
true." Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am.,
Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3d Cir.1992), cert,
denied 507 U.S. 912 (1993).
"facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party only if there is a 'genuine' dispute
as to those facts." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.
372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1776, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). If a
party has carried its burden under the summary judgment rule,
its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Where the record
taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to
find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for
trial. The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute
between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly
supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is
that there be no genuine issue of material fact. When
opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is
blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no ...