Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Louis-EI v. Ebbert

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

September 10, 2019

DAVID J. EBBERT, Defendant



         I. Background

         On 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, 3:17-cv-2350.
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 damages. Id.

         Presently pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment.[1](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.

         II. Summary Judgment Standard of Review

         Through 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).

         The 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).

         However, "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 ...

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.