United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge
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. 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
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
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Law and Analysis
Abram's complaint is subject to screening ...