2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-30-2008

Warren v. USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-4012

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Warren v. USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1099.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1099
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 07-4012

 

MORRIS J. WARREN,

 Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 07-cv-0170)

District Judge: Honorable Edwin M. Kosik

 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 27, 2008

Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(filed: May 30, 2008)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Morris Warren appeals the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of his

complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B) and as

a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b). For the reasons that follow, we will affirm. 
1 Instead, Warren erroneously filed a notice of appeal from that order, emphasizing 1

2 the gravity of his medical condition, but failing to address the Magistrate Judge’s order to

3 identify specific parties. He subsequently filed a motion for the appointment of counsel

4 in the District Court, asserting that he could not afford an attorney, and that his arthritis

5 had been making it difficult for him to type. Furthermore, he claimed that the Magistrate

6 Judge’s order imposed “conditions that [he] can-not [sic] meet,” obviously

7 misunderstanding the Judge’s order to specify individual defendants.

2

Warren is confined in federal prison in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), Warren filed a complaint alleging that he

was suffering from “excruciating” arthritic pain. He further claimed that prison officials

were meddling with his prison financial account by keeping a high enough balance on his

account so as to deprive him of his “indigent” status, consequently disqualifying him for

free treatment and denying him access to medication.

The Magistrate Judge construed the action as arising under Bivens v. Six

Unnamed Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Because

Warren’s complaint named only the “United States of America” and the “Federal Bureau

of Prisons” as the defendants, he was ordered to file an amended complaint naming

proper defendants and alleging their personal involvement. The Magistrate Judge warned

that he would recommend dismissing the action if he failed to comply. Nevertheless,

Warren failed to curatively amend his complaint.1

Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

advising that Warren’s complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
1 Because we affirm the District Court’s dismissal of the action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2

2 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B), we need not reach whether the court abused its discretion in

3 dismissing the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

3

 §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B) and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b) as a sanction for 2

failing to comply with the court order, and the District Court adopted that

recommendation in its entirety.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary

review over the District Court’s dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim under 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir.

2000).

Bivens created a cause of action for damages and injunctive relief against

federal officials for violating an individual’s federal constitutional rights. See 403 U.S. at

388. However, Bivens only authorizes suit against federal officials in their individual

capacities, not the United States and federal agencies. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S.

471, 473 (1984). Accordingly, Warren’s failure to name specific federal prison officials

as defendants and to allege their personal involvement constituted a fatal defect in his

Bivens action. The District Court gave him a chance to amend his complaint and

explicitly instructed him to name the persons alleged to have committed these

constitutional violations or face dismissal of his complaint. But Warren ignored these

instructions, leaving the “United States” and the “Federal Bureau of Prisons” as the only

named defendants in this action. Because these defendants are not proper defendants
under Bivens, we will affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Warren’s complaint for

failure to state a claim. 

4