Opinion
01-CV-4319 (RR)
September 9, 2001
REGINALD SONDS, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Dannemora, New York, Plantiff, pro se
Memorandum and ORDER
Reginald Sonds was convicted before this court on July 10, 1998, having been found guilty after jury trial of conspiring to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute it. See United States v. Sonds, 96 CR 1098 (RR). Sonds' conviction was affirmed by the Second Circuit in an unpublished opinion. See United States v. Torres, 199 F.3d 1324 (table of unpublished decisions) (2d Cir. Oct. 25, 1999), 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 17386. Having been sentenced to a ten-year term of imprisonment, Sonds is presently incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility where he is also serving a state sentence.
Since his federal conviction, Sonds has filed four prior lawsuits against various federal agencies and employees seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages for various perceived wrongs while in custody. See Sonds v. Rivera, 99 CV 7345 (RR); Sonds v. Fleming, 99 CV 7347 (RR);Sonds v. Williams, 99 CV 7348 (RR); Sonds v.Griffin, 00 CV 3932. In a Memorandum and Order dated November 17, 2000, this court dismissed the first three of these cases for Sonds' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to state a claim. Presently pending before the court is defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in Sonds v. Griffin, 00 CV 3932. Recently, Sonds was granted his second and final extension of time to respond.
Sonds now comes before the court seeking to file his fifth pro se complaint in forma pauperis. Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Sonds sues defendants for $25 million in damages allegedly sustained as the result of (1) his failure to receive a cake he purportedly won playing basketball at the Metropolitan Detention Center, a federal facility in Brooklyn, and (2) his subsequent placement in administrative segregation for three days at the same institution. Having carefully reviewed the complaint, this court finds that the cake claim is patently frivolous, that the segregation challenge fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and that, in any event, many of the named defendants are immune from suit for money damages. The court further finds Sonds' suit barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g). For all these reasons, the court dismisses the complaint as it is required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997 e(c)(1).
28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B), which relates to in forma pauperis suits and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1), which relates to suits by prisoners, require courts to dismiss actions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Discussion
Sonds files his complaint on a form for actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the statute prohibiting state actors from depriving individuals of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States under color of state law. Plainly, the named defendants — the United States, various of its agencies, and a number of federal employees — are not state actors. Nevertheless, in Bivins v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Supreme Court derived from the Constitution itself an implicit federal cause of action against federal officials who violated individuals' constitutional rights. Accordingly, the court liberally construes Sonds' complaint as one brought under Bivens.I. Immunity
Although Bivens recognizes an action against federal officials who violate constitutional rights, it does not authorize suit against the United States or its agencies, such as the Department of Justice or the Bureau of Prisons, or against federal employees sued in their official capacities. These defendants are all shielded by sovereign immunity. See Mack v. United States, 814 F.2d 120, 122-23 (2d Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the court dismisses Sonds' suit against the United States, the Department of Justice, the Bureau of prisons and any named defendants sued in their official capacities, finding that these defendants are all immune from suit.
II. Nature of Claims
To the extent Sonds sues any defendant individually for somehow failing to give him a cake he won playing basketball at the Metropolitan Detention Center on July 6, 1998, the claim is so far outside the boundaries of any constitutionally protected right as to be patently frivolous and is hereby dismissed as such. As for the remainder of Sonds' complaint challenging his placement in administrative segregation from July 7, 1998 to July 10, 1998, plaintiff fails to allege circumstances constituting "atypical and significant hardship . . . in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life," which the Supreme Court in Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995), held essential to state a constitutional claim. Accordingly, this part of his complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
III. Prison Litigation Reform Act
Even if Sonds' complaint did state a colorable claim for relief, his ability to sue in forma pauperis would be restricted by that part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g). Therein, Congress barred a prisoner from filing an in forma pauperis civil action
if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injuries.Because this court's November 17, 2000 dismissal of three of Sonds' previous suits for failure to state a claim brings him within the parameters of this statute, he cannot file another in forma pauperis action in federal court unless he alleges "imminent danger of serious physical injuries." Even the most liberal reading of Sonds' papers fails to support a claim of any such danger. Thus, § 1915(g) provides an alternative ground mandating dismissal of plaintiff s complaint. SeeWelch v. Galie, 207 F.3d 130, 131-32 (2d Cir. 2000). Indeed, Sonds is hereby put on notice that no further in forma pauperis pleadings will be accepted by the court unless his pleading conforms to § 1915(g).See Newman v. Holder, 101
F. Supp. 2d 103, 107-08 (E.D.N.Y. 2000).
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the court denies Reginald Sond's request to proceed in forma pauperis and hereby dismisses his complaint. The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED