Page 1

Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE SO UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FILED by CASE NO.:11-20120-C1V-SE1TZ/S1M ONT0N

1

D.C.

77R ')-9Jr,;$:) -

'

-

< >vea-p K. 4. j,s%. jtm

STEVENM.LARIMORE CLERK U.S.DISI'.CT. S.D.ofFLA.-MIAMI

TM IAN BU JDU V EA N U , l'lltirltiF, VS.

DlsM As CHARITIEs,m c.,ANA GISPERL D EREK TH OM A S and LA SH AN DA Ao o s

Defendants. /

Plaintifr:O biection:to theReportand Recom m endation Re;Defendants'M otion to Dism iss

PlaintiF Traian Bujduveanuprovidesthisresponsecontainingalistofobjectionstothe HonorableJudgeAndrea M .Simonton'sreportand recommendationsre:Defendants'M otion to Dism iss,and assertsthefollowing' . Standard forEvaluatinu a m otion to Dism iss

IagreethatFed.R.CiV.P.8(a)(2)requiresthatapleading ''shallcontain...ashort and plain statem entoftheclaim showingthatthepleaderisentitledto relief.''Thisis

because''ltlhepurposeofamoderncomplaintis' togiveopposingpartiesfairnoticeof thebasisoftheclaim againstthem so thatthey m ay respond to thecomplaint,andto apprise the courtofsum cientallegationsto allow itto conclude,iftheallegationsare

proved,thatthe claimanthasa legalrightto relief'''M onumentBuildersv.Am erican

CemeteryAss'n,891F.2d 1473,1480(10thCir.1989),cert.denied,110 S.Ct.2168 1


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 2 of 20

(1990)(quotinginpartPeringtonW holesale,lnc.v.BtlrgerKingCop .,631F.2d 1369,

1371(10thCir.1979));seealsoConleyv.Gibson,355U.S.41,47(1957).Furthermore,

thejudgegoesontomakethecasethat,ttrecitalsoftheelementsofacauseofaction, supported by mereconclusory statements,do notsum ce.'' ThissGtementin addition to otherspropoundedbytheJudgeregardingthelack ofmaterialfactsin thePlaintiffs initialpleadingsleadsthe Plaintiffto question whetherJudge Sim onton actually read the

entirerecordandallthedocumentssubmitted,ratherthanthejustthePlaintiff'sinitial filings. lacknowledgethatm yinitialfilingswerenotthem ostarticulate,and in com pliance w ith every single rule ofcivilprocedure,asthishasbeen a learning process for m e. How ever,D efendantA nna G ispert's adm ission ofnothaving provided BP-9

form sto M ovant,providesthe M ovantno meansofdocumenting theabusesofprocess, abusesofConstitutionalrightsand civillibertieson thepartofthe Defendants,and even goesto the extentofproviding theM ovantvery littlem aterialdocumentation ofhis experiencesatthehalfway house.However,itwastheirintention a1lalong to deny the M ovantanopportunity to everhave alegitimateopportunity to defend him selfboth in

theirnonexistentin-housejudiciaryproceedings,whenhefacedtheFederalBureauof Prisonspriorto being sentback to prison,and currently in hiscivilaction againstthe

Defendants.Iunderstandthatthejudicialprocessishinderedbythelackofdocumented factsthatprovethe% sertionsm adeby theplaintiffs,yetlask thatyou notfallinto the 1ap thattheDefendantshavesetwhen they denied my ability to documentmy grievances. Even ifIw as given the opportunity to m ake sure thatm y initialpleadings w ere in com pliance with the FederalRulesofCivilprocedtlres rules8a,the factofthe

m atter,isthattheDefendant'sconspiracy to coveruptheirwrong doingsby fabricating

2


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 3 of 20

therecord and denyingm em y constim tionalrightto addressand documentm y grievances,leavesm ewith very littlem eansofprovidingm aterialdocllmentation ofmy experiences atDism ms H ouse Charities. M y accusations should notbe seen asitw ildly

implausible''because my initialcom plaintand pleadingswerem y flrstopportunity to presentm y grievances,w ithouta m eansofm aking reference to supporting

docllm enGtion,i.e.BP-9 form s,testim ony by fellow inm ates,and in addition therecord orany proceedings which took place. Essentially,Imsk thatthe courtdoes notview m y

lack offactasbeing Eรงwildly im plausibleallegationsin a pro se complaintthatshould be considered untrue,''howeveritshouldbe seen astheDefendant'sattemptofcloudingthe

court'sjudgmentbypreventingthePlaintifftheabilitytoprovidesum cientproofofhis claim s.

l1.

LegalA nalysis

a. TheFourth Amendment TheDefendantsattem ptto makethecase thatasacondition ofthePlaintic sparole thathe consented to Rsearchesofhisperson and vehicle''.However,thePlaintiffmadeit clearto individualsatDism asHousethathewassimplyoperating afnmily vehicle,to fulfillhisrequired reporting requirem ents. Although the individualsin the halfway house

had,rightto search hisperson upon entering thebuilding,the Suprem eCourthasfound

that,hisfamilymembershaveaprotectedinterestagainsttheirpropertybeingsubjectto

searched andseizure. ''W hentheprosecution seekstojlzstifyawarrantlesssearchby proofofvoluntaz. y consent,itisnotlim ited to proofthatconsentwasgiven by the defendant,butm ay show thatthepermission to search wasobtained from a thirdparty 3


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 4 of 20

whopossessed com m on authority overorothersuftk ientrelationship to the prem isesor

effectssoughttobeinspected.'UnitedStatesv.M atlock,415U.S.164,171(1974).1 haveacknowledgedthat,whileaprobationer'srightofprivacymaybejustifiably diminishedduringtheperiodofprobation(seelnmanv.State,124Ga.App.190(2)(183

SE2d 413)(1971:,''probationarystatusdoesnotconvertapxobationer'sfamily,relatives and friendsinto 'second class'citizens....Thesepeople arenotstripped oftheirrightof

privacybecausetheymaybelivingwith aprobationeror(slhemaybelivingwiththem.'' State v.Fogarty,supra at 151. The Suprem e CourtofM ontnnaathe only courtin the country to addressthe ram itk ations ofthe w arrantless search condition ofprobation on

thirdpartiesliving with aprobationer,concluded thata search warrantbased on probable causem ustbe obtained before aprobationer'sresidenceorproperty may be searched ''so thatthelegalinterestsofinnocentthird personscan be adequatelyprotected...

M oreover,thejudgemakesthecasethatbecauseAdamswasnotdirectlyinvolvedinthe search thatsheshould notbeheld liable.Thenam ed defendantsalthough m ay nothave been the onesthatconductedthe search and seizureofthe vehicle andproperty,werein a position to retum thepropertywhen finding outthatthey werenotsearching the plaintiff spersonalproperty,and thus didn'tgetthe necessary perm ission to search and

seizehisfnm ily'sproperty.ln thiscaserespondeatsuperiortakeseffectin thatAdams,

Thom as,and Gispertaredirectly responsible fortheactionsoftheirem ployees,and they are should be even m ore liable for choosing to coverup theiractionsratherthan

addressingtheseactionsand acting withinthe confmesofthelaw. b. FirstAm endm entRetaliation Claim

4


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 5 of 20

JudgeSimonton attemptsto r guethattheplaintifffailsto state aclaim forretaliation tmderthe FirstAmendm ent. Thisseem ssimilartotheDefendant'sclaim whenthey

notedthat,uhe(themovant)failstoprovideanyproperevidencedemonskatingthathe % ked to attend religiousservicesoutsidea fivem ile radiusand thathisrequestwas

denied''. On 7/29/2010 theM ovantm adea requestto LmshondaAdnm s,in which he requested,and wasdenied the abilityto attend aRom anian Orthodox Chtlrch located on SGte R oad 7,in Pem broke Pines,to w hich M s.A dnm sreplied thatyou are only allowed

totravelwitltin fivem ilesofthefacility forreligiousservices. ln fact,the M ovantmade, 2 otherdocum ented requestson 8/4/2010 and on 10/6/2010,al1ofwhich weredenied by M s.Adams. Al1partiesincludingthedefendantsare awareofthespecialexception tothe

(5)milerulewhich statesthat,Etanexceptiontotherulewillonlybemadewhen yolzr suted denom ination ofworship cannotbelocated witlzin fivem ilesoftheprogram ''.

Crueland UnusualPunishmenttmderEichtAm endm ent TheM agistrateerrorsin herassllm ption thatthePlaintitr sclaim forcrueland unusual punishm entcenters m erely around the cov scation ofhis property,butgoesm uch deeper

and in fact,would beseen asegregiousin m anythirdworld countrieswhh lessrespect forhum an rightsand civilliberties.ln analyzing claim sofEighth Amendm ent violations,the courtsm ustlook atdiscrete areas ofbasic hum an needs.A s we have

recentlyheld,'''(A)ninstimtion'sobligationundertheeighthamendmentisatanendifit furnishessentenced prisonerswith adequatefood,clothing,shelter,snniGtion,m edical

care,andpersonalsafety.'''W rightv.Rushen,642F.2d 1129,1132-33(9th Cir. lg8lltcitationomitted).682F.2dat1246-47.W henanalyzingwhetherDismmscharities violated theirobligation to respectthe Plaintiffs eightam endm entrightsthey w ent 5


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 6 of 20

beyond a confiscation ofllisproperty,sim ply taunting,and subm issionto menial activities. Looking back atthe som e ofom previottsdiscussionsofN egligence in previous

pleadings,itisclearthatalthoug, h the defendantsattemptto paintthem selvesascaring

and com passionate,goingasfarto pointoutthattheym adetherecomm endation thatthe M ovantnotparticipatein any manualactivities.However,AnaGispert,ison record as stating thatshebelievesthatRdustingqualifies'',thusgiving him a directiveto pedbrm m anuallabor.Afterdaysand daysofharassmentin M s.Gispert'sabsence,the M ovant sentan em ailan em ailwithin thisDism asChmitiesintem alsystem indicating,1û...pain and discomfortin my liver''. Yetagain,in a letterdated 10/19/2010,theplaintiff- ote, çûthisletteristo adviseyou thattoday,10/19/2010,10:50 A.M .,lwascalled to thefront desk and toldthat1should vacuum theroom forhim ,in an attem ptto intimidatem e.''H e goeson to statethat,ûû...asaresultofal1actionsagainstm e,forthelastw eek,by M r. Thom asandhisstaff,my liverhasswollen and ldo experiencepain''.lfforcing an individualthatDefendantshadpreviously hadm adethecaseto the Btlreau ofPrisonsto notparticipate in any m anuallabor,to dustand vacuum then isnotaclearcase ofcruel andunusualplnishm ent,andthusaviolation ofthedutyto provide adequatem edical

careandpersonalsafety,thereisnojusticeintheworld.EvenwiththeDefendants adm itting tothefactthatthey wereawareofhismedicalconditions,the Defendantshave

refused to addressthe Plaintifrsclaim thathewmsnotprovided m ealsthatwere diabetic friendly,and wasgiven disciplinaryaction foran incidentwhereiswifewasdelivering food asaresultofhim notreceiving adequatenutritionalfrom thehalfway house, somethingthatthey arerequired by law to do.ThisviolatesDepartmentofCorrection 6


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 7 of 20

Policiesin which,itismandated thateach institution'sfood serviceprop am offers nutritionally balanced,appetizing meals.SpecialFood and M eals,28C.F.R . j547. 20and

Prov am Statem ent4700.05,Food ServicesM anual,providethatmedicaldietsbe availableto inm ateswho requiresuch diets. TheM ovant'sreserch hmsfound however that,aprison oftk ialviolatesaprisoner'sEighth Amendm entrights,and isdeem ed negligentifhe/she isdeliberately indifferentto theprisoner' sseriousmedicalneeds.See

Estellev.Gnmb1e,429U.S.97,103-04,97S.Ct.285,50L.Ed.2d 251(1976). d. Fifth Amendm entDueProcessClaim Let'stakea momentto addresstheM agiskateserroneousclaim thatPlaintifffailsto

setforth any factsdem onstrating afalseimprisonmentorarrestby any specific Defendant.Asstated in M ovant'spreviousbrief,itwasthedirectand indired actionsof the Defendantwhich lead totheconfmem entoftheM ovant.Causation is,ofcom se,a

requiredelementofafalseimprisonment.SeeOviattv.Pearce,954F.2d 1470,1474(9th Cir.1992).A probation/paroleoftkerneednotactuallyuseforcetodetaina probation/parolee illegally.A lthough false im prisonm entusually follow sfalse arrest,

falseimprisonm entm ay takeplaceeven afteravalid arrest. In allofthe Reponsesand bdefsfrom theDefendants,they claim thatthattheM ovant wascharged introducing contraband to thefacility,when in facthe wascharged with a violation 108,w hich specifically,Etpossession,M anufacture,orinkoduction ofa

hnzzrdoustool(Toolsmostlikelytobeusedinanescapeorescapeattemptortoserveas a w eapon capable ofdoing ofdoing serious bodily harm to others;orthose hazardousto institutionalsecurity orpersonalsafety'',to include thatofa cellphone. Firstand .


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 8 of 20

forem ost,a cellphone unless used a detonation device cannotbe seen asthreatto

personalorinstimtionalsafety.Atbestthisalleged violation should have been charged

asaCode 305,Etpossession ofanything notauthorized forretention orreceiptbythe inm ate,notissued tothrough regularchannels.N ow ,why would the Defendants' increasethe chargesagainsttheplaintiffsuch thatthey arem oresevere? The answerto thatquestion issimple. A violation 108 would haverequiredthePlaintitr srem ovalfrom thefacility back to federalprison,whereasifhewĹ&#x201C;schargedappropriately,in-house sanctionswouldhavesuftk ed. Going back to the case1aw and argum entsasserted in om previousresponse,apoliceoftk ermay beheld to haveKinitiated''acrim inalm oceeding ifheknowingly provided falseinformationto the prosecutororotherwiseinterfered with theprosecutor'sinformed discretion.See,Reed,77 F.3d at1054;Torres,966 F.supp.at

1365.Insuchcases,tçan intelligentexerciseofthe...(prosecutor's)discretionbecomes im possible,''and aprosecution based on thefalseinformation isdeem ed ttprocm ed by the person giving the false information.''How ever,a private citizen m ay be held liable for

falsearrestunderj 1983ifheorshecausedtheplaintifftobearrestedbyvirtueoffalse statem ents he orshe m ade to the police.D oby v.D ecrescenzo,1996 U .S.D ist.LEX IS

13175,*40(E.D.Pa.Sept.9,1996).Thus,otlrclaim isclear,theDefendantsdidnot placethePlaintiffin handcuffs,they did howeverprovided false and misleading

sutementstotheBm eauofPrisonssuchthattheirabilitytolevyjusticewmsimpaired andthePlaintil wasdenied theprivilegeofthefreedom sthatcomew1111having completed aprison sentence and being afforded communitym onitoring in ahalfway house facility.

8


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 9 of 20

W hich leadsusto addresstheDefendants'second contention,thePlaintiffwœsunder them isguided impression thathewmsa tûfree man''during histim eatDismas. A tno pointdidthe M ovantseehim selfasa freem an during llistime atDism% , andthe M ovantoperating an autom obilewhiletmderthe mssumption thathewasauthorized to do

sodoesnotjustifytheDefendants'claim.Let'snotmixappleswithoranges,contt. aryto theDefendants'statements,theM ovantwasnotafederalprisonerconfnedto afederal facility,and thuscould notberearrested,hewasa federalinm ate afforded theprivilege ofdwelling in ahalfway house and homeconfmem entdue to hishealth. A s w e m ade dearin om previousbrief,the courtson theotherhand haveseen being on paroleorin

halfwayhouseasbeingmorethanjustaprivilege.TheCourthasfoundprotededliberty interestsafteran inm ateisreleased from instim tionalconfinement.ln M orrissey v.

Brewer,408U.S.471(1972),theCourtrecognizedaparolee'slibertyinterestin remainingconditionally freeonparole:''(H1ecanbegainfullyemployedandisfreetobe with family and friendsand to form the otherenduring attachm entsofnorm allife....

(Hliscondition isverydifferentfrom thatofconfinementinaprison.''ld.at482.Relying onM orrissey,theCourtin Yotmgv.Harper,520 U.S.143(1997),heldthataninmate enrolled in Oklahoma'spre-paroleprop nm also had aprotected liberty interestentitling him to due processbefore he could be rem oved from the program .There the pre-parolee

''wasreleasedfrom prison before the expimtion ofhissentence.Hekepthisown

residence;hesought,obtained,andmaintainedajob;andhelivedalifegenerallyfreeof theincidentsofimprisonment.''By virtueoftheDefendants'w1111 1disregard for

M ovantsrighttothisprivilege,theplaintiffsuffered dnmagesand opportunity cost,for

9


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 10 of 20

notbeing ableto live notasfree man,butasaman whohasearned theprivilegeofbeing free ofcorrectionalinstitutionalconfinem ent. e. D ouble Jeooardv

Yetagain,theMagistratemakestheclaim thatthePlaintiT sdoublejeopardy claimsshouldbedismissedwithprejudiceasthePlaintiffislmabletostateacauseof actiontmderthisclause.Herjustification forthisassertion isUnited Statesv.M ayes, 158F3d 1215(11thcir.1998),inwhichthecourtexaminedacaseinwhichprisoners causeover$3 million in property dnm ageduring aprison riotand weresubsequently punished aspartofthe system aswellasin crim inalproceedingsforthe sam eoffense. However,The sanctionsagainsttheappellantsin tltiscasewereimposedpursuantto28

C.F.R.jj541.10-541.20(1993).Theseregulationsauthorize''institution authoritiesto imposediscipline on thoseinm ateswhosebehaviorisnotin compliancewith Bureau of

Prisonsrules.''28C.F.R.j541.10(a).Section541.13delineatesthevarioustypesof prohibited actsand groupsthem into categoriesbased upon the seriousnessofthe

infraction.See28C.F.R.j541.13,Table3.The''DisciplinarySeverityScale''then describesthetypesofauthorized Ranctionsthatoftk ialshave discretion to imposebmsed

uponthecategoryintowhichtheprohibitedactfalls.See28C.F.R.j541.13,Tables3-6. Theregulationsalso setforth detailedprocedlzralguidelinesthatinstitutionalstaffmust follow when bringing disciplinary action againstan inmate.See28 C.F. R.jj541.14-

541.19.ltisobviousthatthejudgesmakestheerrorusingacasethatinvolvesdirect

criminalconducttojustifyherargument,inacasethatdoesnotinvolvedired criminal conduct. Thusitisclearthatsheshould find acaseinwhich an inm atewaspunished for comm itting aviolation ofbureau ofprisonsterm sandrulesand then issubsequently 10


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 11 of 20

punished in a crim inalproceeding,which isimpossible,assuch acase doesnotexistas theideaofsomeonebeing sentback to prison forsuch aminorviolation isludicrous. f. False Arrestand lmprisonm ent. AssGted in M ovant'spreviousbrief,itwasthe directand indirectactionsofthe Defendantwhich lead totheconfinem entoftheM ovant.Causation is, ofcourse,a required elem entofa false im prisonm ent.See Oviattv.Pearce,954 F.2d 1470,1474(9th

Cir.1992).A probation/paroleofficerneednotacmallyuseforcetodetaina probation/parolee illegally.Although falseimprisonmentusually followsfalse arrest, falseimprisonm entmay takeplace even afteravalid arrest.ln alloftlze Reponsesand briefsfrom the Defendants,they claim thatthattheM ovantwmscharged introducing

contraband to thefacility,when in facthewaschargedwith aviolation 108,which

specitkally,itpossession,M anufacture,orintroductionofahnzmrdoustool(Toolsmost likelyto beused in an escape orescape attemptorto serveasaweapon capable ofdoing

ofdoing seriousbodily hnrm to others;orthosehazardousto institutionalsectlrity or personalsafety'',to includethatofacellphone. Firstand forem ost,acellphoneunless used adetonation device cannotbeseen msthreatto personalorinstitutionalsafety. At bestthis alleged violation should have been charged asa Code 305,Kpossession of

anythingnotauthorized forretention orreceiptby theinm ate,notissued tothrough

regularchannels.Now ,why would the Defendants'incremsethechargesagainstthe plaintiffsuch thatthey aremore severe? Theanswerto thatquestion issimple. A

violation 108wouldhaverequired the Plaintiffsremovalfrom thefacility backto federal prison,whereasifhewaschrged approm iately,in-house sanctionswould havesuftk ed.

11


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 12 of 20

Going back to the cmse 1aw and argum entsasserted in ourpreviousresponse, a police

oftk erm ay beheld tohaveltinitiated''acdm inalproceeding ifheknowingly provided false informationto theprosecutororotherwiseinterferedwith theprosecutor'sinform ed discretion. See,Reed,77 F.3d at1054;Torres,966 F.supp.at1365. In such cases,tlan

intelligentexerciseofthe ...(prosecutor'sldiscretionbecomesimpossible,''anda prosecution based on thefalse information isdeem ed Etprocured bytheperson giving the

falseinformation.''However,aprivatecitizenmaybeheld liableforfalsearrestunderj 1983 ifheorshecaused theplaintiF to bearrested by virtue offalsestatem entsheorshe m adeto thepolice.Doby v.Decrescenzo,1996U .S.Dist.LEXIS 13175, *40(E. D.Pa.

Sept.9,1996).Thus,ourclaim isclear,theDefendantsdidnotplacethePlaintiffin handculs,they did howeverprovided falseand m isleading statem entsto theBtlreau of

Prisonssuchthattheirabilityto levyjusticewasimpairedandthePlaintiffwasdenied theprivilegeofthefreedomsthatcom ewith having completed aprison sentenceand

being afforded comm lmity monitoring in ahalfway housefacility.

Thejudgemakesanotherfundnmentalerrorwhenshelikens,EtthePlaintiffsresidenceat Dism asCharitiesisconsideredthefunctionalequivalentofincarceration, he cnnnot

establishalibertyinterestinremainingthere(p.47)95.Aswearguedinolzrprevious briefs,thecourtsontheotherhand haveseen being on parole orin halfway houseas

beingmorethanjustaprivilege.TheCourthmsfoundprotected libertyinterestsafteran inm ateisrelemsed from instimtionalconsnem ent.In M onissey v.Brewer,408U .S.471

(1972),theCourtrecognized aparolee'slibertyinterestinremainingconditionallyfreeon parole:''(H1ecanbegainfullyemployed andisfreetobewith fnmilyandfriendsandto

form theotherenduringattachmentsofnormallife....(Hlisconditionisverydifferent 12


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 13 of 20

from thatofconfinem entin aprison.''Id.at482. Relying on M onissey,the Courtin

Yotmgv.Harper,520U.S.143(1997),heldthataninmateemolledinOklahoma'spreparoleprogrnm also had aprotected liberty interestentitlinghim todueprocessbefore he could berem oved from theprop am .Therethepre-parolee ''wasreleasedfrom prison before the expiration ofhissentence.Hekepthisown residence' ,obtained,and , he sought

maintainedajob;andhelivedalifegenerallyfreeoftheincidentsofimprisonment.''By virtueofthe Defendants'willfuldisregard forM ovantsrightto tltisprivilege, theplaintiff

suffered dnm agesand opportunity cost,fornotbeing ableto livenotasfreem an, butasa m an who hasenrned the privilegeofbeing free ofcorrectionalinstitutionalconfinem ent. Thereisnothing legalorpermissibleabouttrumpingup chargessuch thatthey cause an

outcom ethatsuited theDefendants'inherentdisgustand dislikeforM ovant,in thatthere aredocllmented cmsesofStateAttorneysthathave been convicted ofcriminalchargesfor padding filesw ith false chargesand arrests.

g. Assaultand Battery. TheM agisGte again arguesthatthereisno way thattheplaintiffcan makea claim forassaultand batteryasthere isno statem entsoffactagainstaparticular

defendant. lagreeforthe sim ple factthat,tlno such record oftheassaultsandbattery that took place astheDefendant'srefusedto providetheM ovantwith and m eansof doctlmenting said actions.'' Anna Gispert'sadm ission ofnothaving provided BP-9

form sto M ovant,providesthe M ovantno meansofdocllmenting the abusesofprocess, abusesofConstitutionalrightsand civillibertieson thepartoftheDefendants,and even goestothe extentofproviding theM ovantvery littlematerialdocum entation ofhis

13


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 14 of 20

experiencesatthehalfway house,which wastheintention oftheDefendants'a11along, essentially concealing and covering up theirm isconduct. Asweargued previously the courtshavemadeitclearthat,in Allenv.M c M onis,No.4:06-cv-810 SNL,2007 W L

172564,at*2(E.D.M o.Jan.19,2007)รงtholdingallegationthatprisonercouldnotget

grievancepolicyorformsbarredsllmmaryjudgmentfordefendants'',andbecauseofthis Courthasan obligationto deny theDefendant'srequestforDismissal,and theM ovant

shouldbeawardedsllmmaryjudgment. h. M aliciousProsecution

The factofthem atteristhatCW IIfederalclaim sform aliciousprosecution are

borrowedfrom thecommon law tort...(whichlimposesliabilityonaprivatepersonwho institutescrim inalproceedingsagainstan innocentperson withoutprobablecause foran

improperpurpose.Thefederalclaim under(42U.S.C.)section 1983formalicious prosecution differsf' rom the state civilsuitinthatitreqtliresthatstateofficialsacting ' undercoloroflaw'instim tethecriminalproceedingsagainsttheplaintiffand thereby depriveltim ofrightssecured undertheConstitution.''Torresv.SuperintendentofPolice,

893F.2d404,409(1stCir.1990). The Plaintiffw msnotguilty ofintroducing hazardousm aterialsinto a correctional

facility,ashiscellphonewassim ply contraband,and notsomething thatcotlld beused to escape,orhnrm thewelfareofthosein the facility.M oreover,thiscellphonewas contraband forindividuals sG ying atD ism asfacilities,and were notcontraband foran

individualon home confinement. Furthermore,thecellphone in hisvehicle,mightin the case ofdrug possession constitute m aterialpossession,how evergiven the factthathe was 14


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 15 of 20

notattem ptingto introduceitinto the facility on hisperson, and wasin factin theglove com partmentofhisvehicletmbeknownstto the M ovantdoesnotconstituteactualor

m aterialpossession.TheplaintiffwĹ&#x201C;sundertheassumption thathewasableto drive, and hisignorance oftheprocessdoesnottake away f' rom hisguilt, buthim operating a

m otorvehicleisnotthereasonthathewastlken back toprison, asthatwouldhavebeen sometlzing addressed in-housethrough Dism ascorrectionalprocedures, butratheritw as thecharge having introduced hazzudousm aterialthatconstituted hisdenialofhisparole.

Given the factthatthe Defendants'were searching forany reason tohaveM ovant's

parolerevoked,dueto theirpersonalhatred forPlaintiffand whathestood for, acting

underthecolorofthelaw,Defendantsintentionallymis-indictedPlaintiftlthus constituting the M ovant'sclaim form aliciousprosecution, and consequently depriving him ofrightssecured lmdertheConstitution, ashehad served ltisdebtto society in prison confinementthusearning him theprivilege ofparole. The Defendantswantthe M ovanttoaddressalltheindividualelem entsof

m aliciousprosecution becausethey areaware theiractionsdenied theM ovantthe ability to show how alleged conductdeprived him ofliberty, by adistortion and com zption of the processesoflaw,i.e.,falsification ofevidence, m ischarging him with violationsthat

wherem uch greaterthan hisactions,and otheregregiousconductnnm ely thedenialof docum ents necessary to ensuring due process, resulting ultimately in thedenialand

revocation ofhisparole,and itisforthisreason thatM ovantshould beawarded sum mary

judgment,andtheDefendant'smotiontodismissshouldbedenied. i. AbuseofProcess

15


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 16 of 20

Both the Defendantsand the M agistratemake the claim thatforPlaintiffto supporta cause ofadion fo<abuseofprocess,t没thePlaintiffmustprovethatthem octssw asused foran immediatepurposeotherthm1which itwasdesigned''. These processesand proceduresputin placeby theDepartmentofCoaectionswherenotputinto placeto

deny the Plaintiffsrightsand privileges,and theM ovantfurtherassertsthatthese proceduresand processeswerenotputintoplace to coveruptheDefendants'willful m isconductand m isdoings. TheDefendnntsarebasically msserting thatbecausetheir

fabrication ofdocuments,untruthfulstatements,and padded filesachievesthepurposeof

ptmishingthedefendant,thatitisjustified.Thefactofthematteristhatanabuseof processoccurswhen there,Risacauseofaction in tortatising from oneparty m aking a

maliciousanddeliberatemisuseorperversionofregularlyissuedcourtprocess(civilor

criminal)notjustifiedbytheunderlyinglegalaction''tW olffv.McDormell,418U.S. 539,94S.Ct.2963,41L.Ed.2d935(1974:. Thisiswhathmsoccun' edinthecaseof the Plaintiff,and the M ovantisso stlre ofassertion,thathe challengestheDefendantsto produce docum entsthatare in Sentryentered and sfnm ped w1111thepropersignaturesand dates.ThePlaintiffand theDefendantsboth know thatthattheseform sdo notexistas they wouldhavebeen documented msevidence ofcompliancewith dueprocessand lawfularrestby theDefendants. Again,a11thathasbeen provided arefabricated docllments,and Plaintil hmsin hispreviousresponse sGtementprovided exhibitsof instnncesin which em ployees adm onishing others to fabricate doczlm ents. lfthe

M ovant'sclaim sto thisend are,t莽unsubstantiated and self-serving''asthe Defendants assertin theirmostrecentresponsebrief,then the Defendantsshouldhaveno trouble providing evidence ofsaid docum entsbeing entered intothe Sentry system thatare

16


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 17 of 20

compliancewith guidelinesfrom theNationalArchivesand RecordsAdministration and theCCM ,ratherth% the documentsthey haveprovidedthatarewroughtwith the Defendants'mislnkesand inaccuraciesasaresultoftheirhmsteto coverup their misdeeds. Nealigence and GrossN egliRence TheM agistrate arguesthat,รงtalthough thePlaintiffhasstated whyhebelievesthe

Defendantswerenegligent,hehasnotsGted how any oftheDefendantsbreached a duty they owed to him orthatany oftheirbreacheswerethe causeofhisdamages, norhashe stated whatdamagesresulted from any breach oftheirduty. However,thePlaintiffmade surethata complete nmdownofhism edicalconditionwasprovided to thedefendants, and itwasforthatreason thattheyrecomm ended initialan home confinem ent, in lightof M sdoctorsrecom m endation againstany sortofm anuallabor. H owever,A na G ispert,

hasbeen placed on record asgiving him directivesgo againstdoctorsorderswhen she stated that,thatshebelievesthatรงtdusting qualifies'', thusgiving him a directiveto perform manuallabor.Afterdaysand daysofharassm entin M s. Gispert'sabsence,the M ovantsentan em ailan em ailw ithin thisD ism msCharitiesintem alsystem indicating, tt ...

pain and discomfortin my liver''. Yetagain, in a letterdated 10/19/2010,the

plaintiffwrote,รงkthisletteristo adviseyou thattoday, 10/19/2010,10:50 A.M .,lwas called to thefrontdesk and told thatIshotlld vacullm theroom forllim , in an attem ptto intim idateme.''Hegoeson to statethat, &E. . . asaresultofal1actionsagainstme,forthe

lastweek,byM r.Thomasandhisstafllmyliverhasswollenandldoexperiencepain'' .

TheM ovantwenton to requesta BP-9form in the sam eletter, and did so 5timeswithin

17


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 18 of 20

thecorrespondenceswithin theExhibitB , in addition to countlessverbalrequestforthese

forms.ltisclearthatfrom justtheinternalcorrespondencesalone,thattheDefendants breachedtheirduty,and theirdenialoftheBP-9 form wasonly an attemptto preventany furtherdocum entation ofthe violationsofbreach ofduty and theobviousdam agesthat resulted from the harassment,forcedm anuallabor, thatexacerbatedtheM ovant's medicalcondition,ofwhich theDefendantsawareofthedamage being cause, asevident in M rs.Gispert'sprom ise to address the issue w 1t.11M r.Thom as. Therefore,the

Defendants'argumentthatplaintiY smotionfors'Immaryjudgmentis,Hdevoidofany properfactssupporting any negligence, claim sofforced manuallabor, constantly terrorized and intim idated,andpermitted to acceptm ealsf' rom hiswife'', isyetanother diversion from thetnzth asproofofthe negligentactson the partofthedefendant, and

the directandproxim ate dnmagesthatresultedto theplaintiffare documented in Dismas Charitiesown intem alm essaging system . ln the Plaintiffspreviousresponseto

Defendants'motionforsummaryjudo enthemssertedthat,aprisonoo cialviolatesa prisoner'sEighth Amendm entrights,and isdeemed negligentifhe/sheisdeliberately indiflkrentto theprisoner'sseriousm edicalneeds. See Estellev.Gnm ble,429 U.S.97,

103-04,97S.Ct.285,50L.Ed.2d251(1976).Deliberateindifferenceencompassesonly unnecessary andw anton iniiction ofpain repugnantto theconscienceofm ankind. See

id.at104-06,97S.Ct.285.''Subjectiverecklessness,''asusedinthecriminallaw,isthe appropriatetestfordeliberate indiFerence. Toinctlrliabilitytmderj1983,anindividual

m ustbepersonally involved in the deprivation ofaperson'sconstitutionalrights. See

Lozanov.Smith,718F.2d756,768(5th Cir.1983). 111.

Conclusion 18


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 19 of 20

Therefore,forthereasonsstated above, weask thatyou review theentire recordand

notjustthePlaintiffsinitialpleadings,anddenytheDefendant'srequestfor dismissal,and concurrently make arecom mendation forSumm ary Judo entin favor ofthePlaintiff. lfnotthen,thePlaintiffshould begiven an orderto filean nmended complaintsuch thatweareableto tix ourviolationswith FederalRulesofCivil

Procedtlrerule 8and 10.

Date:February 20th,2012 Respectfully Subm itted,

o zkzzyzzzozqza/ TRM AN BUJDUVEANU,PRO SE LITIGANT

19


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2012 Page 20 of 20

CERTIFICATE O F SERVICE 1hereby certify thaton or aboutFEBRU ARY 20,2012 a tnle and correctcopy ofthe foregoing docum entwasservedupon thefollowing viatheUnited StatesPostal Service,FirstClassM ail:

Dism asCharities,Inc., 141 N.W .1 St Avenue Dania,FL 33004-2835 Ana Gispert Dism as Charities,lnc. 141 N.W .1 St.Avenue Dania,FL 33004-2835

Derek Thom as Dism asCharities,lnc. 141 N.W .1 St.Avenue Dania,FL 33004-2835

Lashanda Adam s Dism as Charities,lnc. 141 N.W .1 St.Avenue Dania,FL 33004-2835 David S.ChaietEsquire Attorney forDefendants 4000 Hollywood Boulevard Suite 265-South Hollyw ood,FL 33021

EXECUTED ON THIS 20 DAY OF FEBRUARY,2012

z /z zzM pz y/g TRAIAN BUJDUVE NU,PR0 SE 5601W .BROW ARD BLVD., PLANTATION,FL 33317

Document 96  

CemeteryAss'n,891F.2d 1473,1480(10thCir.1989),cert.denied,110 S.Ct.2168 CASE NO.:11-20120-C1V-SE1TZ/S1MONT0N Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you