2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-30-2008 

# W arre n v . U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4012

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " W arr e n v . U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1099. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1099NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 4012 M OR RI S J . WARR E N, A ppel l ant

v. UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ; F E DE RA L BU RE AU OF P RI S ONS O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 0170) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le E d w in M . K o sik Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay27, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: M ay30, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM

M o rris W a rre n a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s s u a sp o n te d ism iss a l o f h is compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m under28 U . S. C . §§ 1915A and 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) and as a s a n c tio n u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P ro . 4 1 (b ). F o r t h e re a s o n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill a f

f ir m .1 I ns t ead, W arr en err oneous l yfi l ed a not i ce of appea l fr om thator der , emphasi zi ng 1 2 the gr avi tyof hi s m edi cal condi t i on, butfai l i ng t o addr es s the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s or dert o 3 id e n tifysp e c if

ic p a rties . H e su b se q u e n tlyf iled a m o tio n f

o r th e a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l 4 i n the D i stri ctC ou rt , assert i ng that he cou l d n ot afford an att orney , and that hi s ar thri t i s 5 had bee n m aki ng i tdi ffi cul tforhi m t o type. Fur therm or e, he cl ai m ed thatthe M agi s tr at e 6 J u d g e ’ s o r d e ri m p o s e d “ c o n d i t i o n s th a t[ h e ] c a n - n o t[ s i c ] m e e t , ” o b v i o u s l y 7 m is u n d e rs ta n d in g th e J u d g e ’s o rd e r t o s p e c if yin d iv id u a l d e f

e n d a n ts . 2 W arr en i s confi ned i n fede r al pr i s on i n L ew i s bur g, Penns y l vani a. Pr ocee di ng pr o s e and i n form a paupe r i s ( I FP), W arr en fi l ed a c om pl ai ntal l egi ng thathe w a s s u f f e rin g f ro m “ e x c ru c iatin g ” a rth ritic p a in . H e f u rth e r c laim e d th a t p riso n o f f icia ls w e re m e d d lin g w ith h is p riso n f in a n c ial a c c o u n t b yk e e p in g a h ig h e n o u g h b a lan c e o n h is acc ounts o as t o depr i ve hi m of hi s “i ndi gent ” s t atus , cons equent l ydi s qual i fy i ng hi m for fr ee tr eatm entand deny i ng hi m acc es s t o m edi cat i on.

T h e M a g istra te J u d g e c o n stru e d th e a c tio n a s a risin g u n d e r B iv e n s v . S ix U nn am ed A gen t s of t he F ederal B ureau o f N arcot i cs, 40 3 U . S . 38 8 (197 1). B ecause W arr en’ s compl ai ntnamed onl ythe “U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca” and the “Fede r al B ur eau of Pr i s ons ” as the def

endant s , he w as or der ed t o fi l e an a m ended c om pl ai ntnami ng pr operdefe ndant s and al l egi ng thei rper s onal i nvol vement . T he M agi s tr at e J udge w arned that he w ou l d recom m end dis m i ssi ng the acti on i f he f ai l ed to com ply . N evertheles s, W a rre n f a iled to c u ra tiv e lya m e n d h is c o m p lain t. 1 T her eaf t er , the M agi s tr at e J udge i s s ued a Repor tand R ecomm endat i on a d v i s i n g th a tW a r r e n ’ s c o mp l a i n tb e d i s mi s s e d f o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m u n d e r2 8 U. S . C.1 B eca us e w e af fi r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of the ac t i on under28 U . S. C . §§ 2 2 1915A and 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) , w e nee d notr eac h w hetherthe courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n 3 d is m is s in g th e a c tio n u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 4 1 (b ). 3 §§ 1915A and 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) and pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. Pr o. 41( b) as a s anct i on for 2 fai l i ng t o compl yw i th t he courtor der , and the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed that r e c o m m e n d a t i o n i n i t s e n t i r e ty.

W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e e x erc ise p lena ry r evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of an a ct i on forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m under28 U . S . C . § § 1 9 1 5 A an d 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). S ee A ll ah v . S eive rl ing , 2 2 9 F . 3 d 2 2 0 , 2 2 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). B i ven s cr eat ed a ca use of act i on for dam ages an d inj un ct i ve rel i ef ag ai nst fede r al offi ci al s forvi ol at i ng an i ndi vi dual ’ s fede r al cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . See 403 U . S. at 388. H ow ever , B i vens onl yauthor i zes s ui tagai ns tfede r al offi ci al s i n thei ri ndi vi dual c a pa c i t i e s , no tthe U ni t e d St a t e s a nd fe de r a l a ge nc i e s . Se e F. D . I . C. v. M e y e r , 51 0 U. S. 4 7 1 , 4 7 3 (1 9 8 4 ). A c c o rd in g ly , W a rre n ’s f a ilu re to n a m e sp e c if

ic f e d e ra l p riso n o f

f icia ls a s d e f e n d a n ts a n d to a lleg e th e ir p e rso n a l in v o lv e m e n t co n stitu ted a f a tal d e f e c t in h is B i vens act i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgave hi m a cha nce t o amend hi s compl ai ntand exp l i ci t l yi nst ruct ed h i m t o n am e t he p ers on s al l eged t o h ave co m m i t t ed these con st i tuti on al viol at i on s or face di sm i ssal of h i s com plai nt. B ut W arr en ignored these in stru c tio n s, le a v in g th e “ U n ited S tate s” a n d th e “ F e d e ra l B u re a u o f P riso n s” a s th e o n ly n a m e d d e f

e n d a n ts in th is a c tio n . B e c a u se th e se d e f e n d a n ts a re n o t p ro p e r d e f e n d a n tsunderB i vens , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of W arr en’ s compl ai ntfor f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im .

4