Buy This Entire Record For
Magluta v. United States Bureau of Prisons
United States District Court, D. Colorado
April 2, 2015
SALVADOR MAGLUTA, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, F.N.U. VANEC, Assistant SIS at U.S.P. Florence, THERESA MONTOYA, Senior Legal Counsel at ADX Florence, RICHARD DERR, Unit Manager at U.S.P. Florence, CHARLES DANIELS, Warden at U.S.P. Florence, CRAIG F. SWARTZ, Assistant Warden at U.S.P. Florence, PAUL M. LAIRD, Regional Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, F.N.U. MEYERS, S.I.A. at U.S.P. Terre Haute, JOHN F. CARRAWAY, Warden at U.S.P. Terre Haute, F.N.U. ROY, SIS Technician at U.S.P. Terre Haute, JASON CRUZE, S.I.S. Technician at U.S.P. Terre Haute, SEAN SNYDER, Captain at ADX Florence, ELEANOR ALEXANDER, ADX Hearing Administrator, BELINDA AUTERSON, Disciplinary Hearing Officer at U.S.P. Terre Haute, JOSE A. SANTANA, Chief Designation Sentencing Comp. Center Grand Prairie, Texas, BLAKE R. DAVIS, Assistant Director, Correctional Program Division, BOP Central Office, TERESA NEHLS, Nurse Practitioner, F.C.C. Florence, DAVID ALLRED, Clinical Director, F.C.C. Florence, F.N. U.SANTINI, Clinical Director, F.C.C. Florence, DAVID BERKEBILE, Warden, ADX Florence, LISA McDERMOTT, A.H.S.A., U.S.P. Florence, JOHN DOES, BOP Staff Terre Haute, and JOHN DOES, BOP Staff Florence, Defendants.
ORDER TO AMEND
GORDON P. GALLAGHER, Magistrate Judge.
On February 14, 2015, Plaintiff Salvador Magluta, through counsel, filed a 120-page Complaint that has 311 attachments, names twenty-one defendants, and asserts twenty-eight claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(b)(2) and (3), this Court is required to review the pleadings of a prisoner, when he is challenging prison conditions and seeking redress from a governmental entity, officer or employee, to determine if the pleadings should be summarily dismissed. Pursuant to this Court's initial review and the following findings, counsel will be directed to amend the Complaint.
First, the Court takes notice of the cases Plaintiff has filed previously regarding the conditions of his confinement. When Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee in 1994 and 1999, he filed, with the assistance of counsel, two cases challenging the conditions of his detainment. See Magluta v. Haro, et al., No. 99-cv-00900-FAM (S.D. Fla. Apr. 26, 1999) (voluntary dismissal); Magluta v. Samples, et al., No. 94-cv-02700-TWT (N.D.Ga. Apr. 21, 2006), vacated and remanded, 256 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. July 13, 2001) (with instructions to allow plaintiff to amend), affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part, No. 03-11667 (11th Cir. July 8, 2004) (due process claim remanded), aff'd, No. 06-12870 (11th Cir. June 11, 2007) (found the evidence does not establish that plaintiff's pretrial detention amounted to punishment because plaintiff poses a serious and legitimate security risk, and his detention was not an exaggerated response).
Since Plaintiff's conviction and sentence in 2002, Plaintiff has filed three additional civil cases challenging the conditions of his confinement (one concerned the conditions of his pretrial confinement), specifically his classification and denial of access to his attorneys. Magluta v. Bureau of Prisons, et al., No. 11-cv-02381-RM-KLM (D. Colo. Oct. 14, 2014) (After three years of litigation and 168 entries on the Court Docket, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.); Magluta v. Bureau of Prisons, et al., No. 08-cv-00404-CMA-MJW (D. Colo. Feb. 23, 2010) (stipulated motion to dismiss in connection to settlement of the matter); Magluta v. Wetzel, et al., No. 03-cv-20155-PAS (S.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2006) (challenged pretrial administrative detention pending trial; claims dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)), dismissed on appeal, No. 07-10707 (11th Cir. Jan. 4, 2008) (failure to prosecute).
In Case No. 11-cv-02381-RM-KLM, Plaintiff's attorney, who is the same attorney that has made an appearance in this case and submitted the 120-page Complaint on Plaintiff's behalf, in support of the voluntary dismissal stated as follows:
Plaintiff, Salvador Magluta, through his lawyer, Kelly C. Cherry, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby gives notice that he voluntarily dismisses this case and states as follows:
1. Neither an Answer nor a Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed in the case.
2. Undersigned counsel did not participate in the filing of the various Complaints and the litigation of the Motions to Dismiss. After thorough review of the Complaints and the relevant case history, undersigned counsel has determined that further effort to litigate these claims is not warranted.
Magluta, No. 11-cv-02381-RM-KLM at ECF No. 167 (emphasis added). Plaintiff's attorney entered the notice of voluntary dismissal in case No. 11-cv-02381 after a seventy-five page recommendation was entered by the magistrate judge that addressed plaintiff's seventy-five page complaint that named twenty-three defendants and asserted eight claims.
Here, counsel on behalf of Plaintiff, asserts jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986, 1988; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 1361, 2201, 2202, 2241; 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 706; Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 288 (1971), the Administrative Procedures Act (APA); and Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954). Relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2)(b)(e), counsel further contends that venue is proper because a substantial portion of the causes of action arose in this district.
Although the named parties are different in this action from Case No. 11-cv-02381, the nature of the allegations is somewhat similar in that Plaintiff is challenging his access to his attorneys, his classification, retaliation for filing civil actions and administrative remedy requests, and conspiracy by defendants. The twenty-eight claims presented by counsel are as follows:
1. Defendants BOP, Carraway, Meyers, and Cruze initiated unlawful disciplinary actions in violation of APA, the Accardi Doctrine, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361, 2201, 2202, and 2241, and the traditional notions of equity;
2. Defendants Carraway, Cruze, Meyers, and Auterson violated Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment right to equal protection by imposing a different sanction on him than his cellmate as a result of a disciplinary action;
3. Defendants Carraway, Cruze, Meyers, and Auterson violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights by imposing grossly disproportionate penalties as a result of disciplinary action;
4. Defendants Carraway, Cruze, and Meyers violated Plaintiff's First Amendment rights by denying legal telephone calls and visits;
5. Defendants Carraway, Meyers, and Cruze violated Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment rights by interfering with legal mail and seizing legal documents;
6. Defendants Carraway, Meyers, and Cruze violated First Amendment rights by interfering with legal mail and seizing legal documents
7. Defendants Carraway, Meyers, and Auterson violated First Amendment rights by placing Plaintiff in segregated confinement based on false charges in retaliation for exercising constitutional and statutory rights;
8. Defendants Carraway, Meyers, Cruze, BOP, Auterson, and John Does conspired in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 by concealing information that would prove ...