HYMAN v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al, No. 1:2015cv08149 - Document 5 (D.N.J. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 12/29/2015. (drw)n.m.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
HYMAN v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al Doc. 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE Randolph Levy Hyman, Jr., CIV. ACTION NO. 15-8149(RMB) Plaintiff, OPINION V. Michael Meisky, Counselor, Defendant. U.S. RENEE MARIE BtTh1B, I. District Judge BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Jersey, Agents filed a of prisoner a civil Federal November 19, moved from Room FCI-Fort Dix. FCI-Fort action under Bureau 2015, in of Dix, Bivens Narcotics, in Dix, New Six Unknown Named v. 403 Fort U.S. 388 (1971) on seeking an injunction preventing him from being 107, (ECF No. first 1.) floor, Unit 5751 to another room at Plaintiff did not submit a filing fee or an application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee (in forma pauperis “IFP” application), and this Court administratively terminated the action. IFP application, a (ECF No. 2.) proposed Plaintiff has now submitted an amendment to his complaint, and he 1 Dockets.Justia.com renewed his request moved to a for an injunction prohibiting him from being different cell. (ECF application is properly certified establishes Court his will application. Nos. by this matter A prisoner must pay the required a to litigant review proceeds the frivolous or malicious; may be granted; who immune is U.S.C. II. or (3) from in complaint (2) entire official, and Therefore, the fee. Plaintiff’s filing fee, 28 U.S.C. and IF? prison grant forma Plaintiff’s 4.) filing and the case is dismissed upon screening. When a inability to pay the reopen 3, even if § 1915(b) (2). pauperis, dismiss IFP it the if court it is is (1) fails to state a claim on which relief seeks monetary relief against a defendant such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (3); 28 § 1915A. DISCUSSION Plaintiff alleged he was diagnosed with depression and severe anxiety, and conditions. is presently (ECF No. 1, ¶4.) receiving He treatment seeks to amend his for complaint substitute Counselor Michael Meisky as the defendant. at 1.) floor those (ECF No. to 3 Melsky informed Plaintiff that he had to give up his first room because he did not qualify for it. (ECF No. 1, ¶5.) Plaintiff asserts the plan to move him into a twelve-inmate room 2 threatens his mental health because he cannot be around crowds of people or noise. (ECF No. amending BY the 1, ¶6.) complaint to substitute Meisky as the defendant, Plaintiff cured a deficiency in the original complaint; the named defendants constitutional Plaintiff lacked personal violation. has not However, alleged involvement in facts his in amended stating an alleged complaint, constitutional a violation.’ To state a claim of inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, medical need; and (2) an inmate must set forth: . serious a prison official’s deliberate indifference to that serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, (1976) a (1) 429 U.S. 106 97, Deliberate indifference is a reckless disregard of a known risk of harm, negligent conduct does not meet the standard. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. Plaintiff 825, alleged he that requires treatment, 1, ¶4.) 836 See Goodrich v. has (1994) a diagnosed serious medical depression and severe anxiety. Clinton County Prison, 214 F. need (ECF No. App’x 105, Although Plaintiff should have filed an entirely new amended complaint to replace the original complaint, the Court will address the proposed amendments in Plaintiff’s self-styled document “Amending Motion Requesting a Temporary Emergency, Medical Injunction” together with his original complaint. (ECF Nos. 1 and 3.) 3 111 as (3d Cir. (a mental illness diagnosed by a psychiatrist 2007) requiring treatment constitutes serious a medical He need.) further alleged Counselor Melsky told him he did not qualify for a first floor housing unit. disagreement with Plaintiff’s allegation constitutes a Counselor Meisky’s professional judgment. Disagreement with a professional medical opinion does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See DeFranco v. Wolf, F. App’x 158-59 professionals single-cell celling, (3d Cir. believed and 2010) the others case (in plaintiff believed where should there was be no some 387 medical prescribed harm in a double disagreement among doctors did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference) constituting deliberate Plaintiff . does not to his indifference allege facts anxiety and depression. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, filed herewith, Complaint the (ECF Nos. 1, Court 3) will in the accompanying Opinion dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 4 mb RENEE MARIE BUNB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
