Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/82281368/Plaintiff-s-Objections-to-the-Report-and-Recommendation-Re-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:51:31+00:00

Document:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.
foremost, a cell phone unless used a detonation device cannot be seen as threat to personal or institutional safety. At best this alleged violation should have been charged as a Code 305, Possession of anything not authorized for retention or receipt by the inmate, not issued to through regular channels. Now, why would the Defendants increase the charges against the plaintiff such that they are more severe? The answer to that question is simple. A violation 108 would have required the Plaintiffs removal from the facility back to federal prison, whereas if he was charged appropriately, in-house sanctions would have sufficed. Going back to the case law and arguments asserted in our previous response, a police officer may be held to have initiated a criminal proceeding if he knowingly provided false information to the prosecutor or otherwise interfered with the prosecutors informed discretion. See, Reed, 77 F.3d at 1054; Torres, 966 F.Supp. at 1365. In such cases, an intelligent exercise of the ... [prosecutors] discretion becomes impossible, and a prosecution based on the false information is deemed procured by the person giving the false information. However, a private citizen may be held liable for false arrest under 1983 if he or she caused the plaintiff to be arrested by virtue of false statements he or she made to the police. Doby v. DeCrescenzo, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13175, *40 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 1996). Thus, our claim is clear, the Defendants did not place the Plaintiff in handcuffs, they did however provided false and misleading statements to the Bureau of Prisons such that their ability to levy justice was impaired and the Plaintiff was denied the privilege of the freedoms that come with having completed a prison sentence and being afforded community monitoring in a halfway house facility.
punished in a criminal proceeding, which is impossible, as such a case does not exist as the idea of someone being sent back to prison for such a minor violation is ludicrous.
f. False Arrest and Imprisonment. As stated in Movants previous brief, it was the direct and indirect actions of the Defendant which lead to the confinement of the Movant. Causation is, of course, a required element of a false imprisonment. See Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992). A probation/ parole officer need not actually use force to detain a probation/parolee illegally. Although false imprisonment usually follows false arrest, false imprisonment may take place even after a valid arrest. In all of the Reponses and briefs from the Defendants, they claim that that the Movant was charged introducing contraband to the facility, when in fact he was charged with a violation 108, which specifically, Possession, Manufacture, or introduction of a hazardous tool (Tools most likely to be used in an escape or escape attempt or to serve as a weapon capable of doing of doing serious bodily harm to others; or those hazardous to institutional security or personal safety, to include that of a cell phone. First and foremost, a cell phone unless used a detonation device cannot be seen as threat to personal or institutional safety. At best this alleged violation should have been charged as a Code 305, Possession of anything not authorized for retention or receipt by the inmate, not issued to through regular channels. Now, why would the Defendants increase the charges against the plaintiff such that they are more severe? The answer to that question is simple. A violation 108 would have required the Plaintiffs removal from the facility back to federal prison, whereas if he was charged appropriately, in-house sanctions would have sufficed.
from that of confinement in a prison." Id. at 482. Relying on Morrissey, the Court in Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143 (1997), held that an inmate enrolled in Oklahoma's preparole program also had a protected liberty interest entitling him to due process before he could be removed from the program. There the pre-parolee "was released from prison before the expiration of his sentence. He kept his own residence; he sought, obtained, and maintained a job; and he lived a life generally free of the incidents of imprisonment." By virtue of the Defendants willful disregard for Movants right to this privilege, the plaintiff suffered damages and opportunity cost, for not being able to live not as free man, but as a man who has earned the privilege of being free of correctional institutional confinement. There is nothing legal or permissible about trumping up charges such that they cause an outcome that suited the Defendants inherent disgust and dislike for Movant, in that there are documented cases of State Attorneys that have been convicted of criminal charges for padding files with false charges and arrests.
experiences at the halfway house, which was the intention of the Defendants all along, essentially concealing and covering up their misconduct. As we argued previously the courts have made it clear that, in Allen v. Mc Morris, No. 4:06-cv-810 SNL, 2007 WL 172564, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 19, 2007) holding allegation that prisoner could not get grievance policy or forms barred summary judgment for defendants, and because of this Court has an obligation to deny the Defendants request for Dismissal, and the Movant should be awarded summary judgment.
h. Malicious Prosecution The fact of the matter is that All federal claims for malicious prosecution are borrowed from the common law tort ... [which] imposes liability on a private person who institutes criminal proceedings against an innocent person without probable cause for an improper purpose. The federal claim under [42 U.S.C.] section 1983 for malicious prosecution differs from the state civil suit in that it requires that state officials acting 'under color of law' institute the criminal proceedings against the plaintiff and thereby deprive him of rights secured under the Constitution." Torres v. Superintendent of Police, 893 F.2d 404, 409 (1st Cir.1990).
not attempting to introduce it into the facility on his person, and was in fact in the glove compartment of his vehicle unbeknownst to the Movant does not constitute actual or material possession. The plaintiff was under the assumption that he was able to drive, and his ignorance of the process does not take away from his guilt, but him operating a motor vehicle is not the reason that he was taken back to prison, as that would have been something addressed in-house through Dismas correctional procedures, but rather it was the charge having introduced hazardous material that constituted his denial of his parole. Given the fact that the Defendants were searching for any reason to have Movants parole revoked, due to their personal hatred for Plaintiff and what he stood for, acting under the color of the law, Defendants intentionally mis-indicted Plaintiff, thus constituting the Movants claim for malicious prosecution, and consequently depriving him of rights secured under the Constitution, as he had served his debt to society in prison confinement thus earning him the privilege of parole.
The Defendants want the Movant to address all the individual elements of malicious prosecution because they are aware their actions denied the Movant the ability to show how alleged conduct deprived him of liberty, by a distortion and corruption of the processes of law, i.e., falsification of evidence, mischarging him with violations that where much greater than his actions, and other egregious conduct namely the denial of documents necessary to ensuring due process, resulting ultimately in the denial and revocation of his parole, and it is for this reason that Movant should be awarded summary judgment, and the Defendants motion to dismiss should be denied.
compliance with guidelines from the National Archives and Records Administration and the CCM, rather than the documents they have provided that are wrought with the Defendants mistakes and inaccuracies as a result of their haste to cover up their misdeeds.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we ask that you review the entire record and not just the Plaintiffs initial pleadings, and deny the Defendants request for dismissal, and concurrently make a recommendation for Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. If not then, the Plaintiff should be given an order to file an amended complaint such that we are able to fix our violations with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 8 and 10.
Traian Bujduveanu v. United States Of America,et al.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.