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.

Abram v. USA

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division

June 18, 2018

SAMUEL ROY ABRAM, Plaintiff
v.
USA, ET AL. Defendants

          DEE D. DRELL JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge

         Before the Court is a complaint filed by pro se Plaintiff Samuel Roy Abram (“Abram”) (#11398-002) pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.[1] Abram is an inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana. Abram complains his constitutional rights were violated during a “lockdown and modified operations that occurred between January 12, 2017 - April 10, 2017, due to inmate on staff assault.” Abram names as defendants the United States of America, Andrew Howard (“Receiving and Discharging Worker”), and A. Boteler (“Receiving and Discharging Supervisor”).

         Because the United States is immune from suit, Abram's claims against it should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The remainder of Abram's claims should be dismissed as frivolous and failing to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

         I. Background

         Abram complains that, during a lockdown on February 27, 2017, Officer D. Williams served the noon meal, which was inedible. (Doc. 9, p. 4). Abram returned the tray of food, and Captain Nunez ordered some new trays and/or extra food to be distributed at dinner time. Abram never received a replacement lunch tray or extra food. Thus, Abram did not have lunch. (Doc. 9, p. 4).

         Abram alleges that the “shakedown team” took all of Abram's pants, shirts, underclothes, washcloths, towels, laundry bag, and socks. (Doc. 9, p. 4). Abram claims the staff members violated an employee conduct program statement by not being attentive to their duties. (Doc. 9, p. 4).

         Abram complains that a staff member violated his Eighth Amendment rights by “banging on bunks, pipes, walls, and windows well after 10:00 p.m., ” causing Abram to suffer sleep deprivation and anxiety. (Doc. 9, p. 4).

         Abram alleges that staff members only distributed cleaning supplies for cell sanitation on one occasion during the approximately two-month lockdown period. (Doc. 9, p. 5). Additionally, after an inmate took all of the hygiene items that were to be distributed among Abram's unit, Abram did not receive hygiene items. (Doc. 9, p. 7). Abram claims the staff members violated the employee conduct program statement by not being attentive to their duties. (Doc. 9, pp. 5, 7).

         On one occasion during the lockdown period, Abram was supposed to receive a shower, but did not. Abram complains that kitchen workers and main corridor workers were allowed to shower that day. (Doc. 9, p. 5).

         Abram claims that on Thursday, April 6, 2017, he took certified mail to the mailroom, where it was held until Monday, April 10, 2017. (Doc. 9, p. 5). Abram also claims that an employee once refused to accept an article of mail from Abram, thereby violating a BOP program statement. (Doc. 9, p. 7).

         Abram alleges that, on April 28, 2017, he was instructed to report to the receiving and delivery department. (Doc. 9, p. 6). Defendant A. Boteler instructed Abram numerous times to enter the office, but Abram refused because he did not feel safe. (Doc. 9, p. 6). Eventually Abram entered the office, but was escorted to a lieutenant's office because he had disobeyed a direct order. (Doc. 9, p. 6). After a couple of hours, Abram was released. Abram claims Defendant Boteler violated his rights under the First and Fifth Amendments by threatening him and coercing him to speak with her, and retaliated against him by attempting to send him to the Special Housing Unit. (Doc. 9, p. 7).

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Abram's complaint is subject to screening ...


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.