United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London
LAMONT L. WARREN, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
K. CALDWELL, CHIEF JUDGE.
L. Warren is a federal prisoner who was previously confined
at the United States Penitentiary (USP) - McCreary in Pine
Knot, Kentucky and is now incarcerated at the USP in Pollock,
Louisiana. Proceeding without a lawyer, Warren filed a civil
rights complaint with this Court using the Court's
approved E.D. Ky. 520 Form. [R. 21]. That complaint is now
before the Court on initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915 and 1915A. For the reasons set forth below,
the Court will dismiss most of Warren's claims, but it
will allow some of his claims under the Federal Tort Claims
Act (FTCA) to proceed.
1996, a jury in the District of Columbia Superior Court
convicted Warren of “an array of crimes, including
assault with intent to kill while armed, possession of a
firearm during a crime of violence, carrying a pistol without
a license, and voluntary manslaughter while armed.”
Warren v. United States, No. 3:11-cv-1479 at R. 12
(M.D. Penn. 2011). Warren has said that he was sentenced to
an aggregate term of 22 years to life in prison. See
as the Court can tell from Warren's complaint, which is
very difficult to follow, he participated in the Bureau of
Prisons' (BOP's) Challenge Program while he was
incarcerated at USP - McCreary. The Challenge Program is an
intensive treatment program for high security inmates.
Warren, however, alleges that he did not complete the program
but instead “removed himself because of vindictiveness
by” Ms. Howard, a treatment specialist who he alleges
“called him a pervert to several inmates.” [R. 21
at 2]. The United States Parole Commission subsequently
denied Warren parole, citing his “negative
institutional behavior and lack of programming.” [R.
21-4 at 1]. The Parole Commission then recommended that
Warren re-enroll in the Challenge Program and complete it
before being further considered for parole. [See
alleges that he requested re-entry in the Challenge Program,
but prison officials denied his request and retaliated
against him by placing him in the Special Housing Unit (SHU).
[See R. 21 at 2; R. 21-1 at 2; R. 21-2 at 1].
According to Warren's exhibits, prison officials claim
that they placed him in the SHU “pending an
investigation for continued negative institutional behavior
in the form of predatory behavior towards female
staff.” [R. 21-4 at 2]. Warren, however, apparently
alleged to the BOP that prison “staff intentionally
fabricated the allegations of negative institutional
then claims that, while he was in the SHU, he was placed in a
cell with another inmate who he says came from a
“different background, ” had a different
“belief system, ” and even “screamed about
killing Americans.” [R. 21 at 2-3; R. 21-1 at 2].
Warren says that he complained about the inmate and
“wrote to Psyc, ” “told SIS Salmen, ”
and “talked to [the] Unit Team, ” but
“never got any help” and “was refuse[d]
moving.” [R. 21 at 2; R. 21-1 at 2]. Warren then
alleges that the other inmate attacked him, stabbing him
multiple times in the back. [See R. 21 at 2-3; R.
21-1 at 2; R. 21-4 at 2]. Warren also suggests that
unspecified prison officials knew of the other inmate's
“history of assaults on black African inmates”
and failed to protect him, especially since there was
“a weapon in the cell which caused [Warren]
harm.” [R. 21 at 3].
Warren claims that, after the alleged assault, an unnamed
physician “did not provide medicine for pain or issues
of my stress of pain.” [R. 21-2 at 1]. Warren also
says, “Plaintiff complaint about problems with stabbing
making it worst with his reflex and need to go to a outside
hospital. No. response.” [Id.]. Still, Warren
acknowledges that he was taken “to a prison infirmary,
” “operated on for an hour, ” and
“receive[d] over 20 stitches in his left side and
back.” [R. 21-1 at 2]. Warren also notes that a
physician's assistant later removed his stitches [R. 21-2
at 1], though he complains that he “never received a
pain pill to confront the pains he suffered” and
confusingly adds that he “was then forced in cell with
a homosexual.” [R. 21-1 at 2].
addition to setting forth the foregoing factual allegations,
Warren lists multiple defendants in his complaint, including
Warden Ray Ormond, Assistant Warden Gomez, Treatment
Specialist Ms. Howard, Treatment Specialist Dr. Booker, and
“unknown officials.” [R. 21 at 1-2]. In an
attached document, Warren also lists numerous John Doe
defendants, including but not limited to correctional
officers, a lieutenant, a medical administrator, and an
individual allegedly in charge of prisoner medical
appointments. [See R. 21-1 at 1].
asked what rights the defendants allegedly violated, Warren
cites 42 U.S.C. § 1983, states that a supervisor is
generally “liable for the constitutional violations of
subordinates, ” claims that “mental and emotional
distress are compensable, ” says the “filing of
prison grievances is actively protected, ” and suggests
that prison officials retaliated against him for exercising
his constitutional rights. [R. 21 at 4]. Warren also later
references his administrative tort claims, the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment,
and his due process rights. [See R. 21 at 5-6; R.
21-2 at 1]. Warren also filed an “amended affidavit of
truth, ” but that document is largely unintelligible
and includes references to slavery, the Declaration of
Independence, and case law from the nineteenth century.
[See R. 21-3 at 1-2].
Warren asks the Court to grant him several different forms of
relief, including an order that releases him from custody,
directs that he be paid $100 million, and expunges all his
disciplinary convictions. [R. 21 at 8; R. 21-2 at 2]. These
are just a few the forms of relief that Warren is seeking.
[See R. 21-2 at 1-2].
complaint is now before the Court on initial screening
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A.
initial matter, Warren's complaint and attached documents
are very difficult to follow and do not comply in any
meaningful way with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Indeed, Warren's complaint runs afoul of Rule 8 because
it does not contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief” and
fails to include allegations that are “simple, concise,
and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1). Instead,
Warren's submissions include numerous hard-to-follow
pages that contain overlapping factual allegations and
repetitive claims for relief. [See Rs. 21, 21-1,
21-2, 21-3, 21-4, 21-5]. Warren also wrote his allegations in
a confusing narrative format that includes many superfluous
details and fails to clearly explain what each named
defendant did or failed to do to cause him harm, despite
being specifically directed to do so. [See id.].
Thus, Warren's claims are hard to track. That said, since
Warren is a pro se litigant, he is afforded latitude
and, therefore, the Court has attempted to group those claims
for relief that it can follow.
Claim Challenging the Parole Commission's Decision
first appears to be trying to directly or indirectly
challenge the Parole Commission's decision denying him
parole-a decision presumably based, at least in part, on his
failure to complete the Challenge Program. However, Warren
has already fully litigated this issue to no avail before the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, see Warren v. Johnson, No. 1:18-cv-1431
(W.D. La. 2019), and he cites no legal authority that would
allow him to collaterally attack the Western District of
Louisiana's decision in this civil rights case. Thus, the
Court will dismiss this claim with prejudice.
Claim Challenging Disciplinary Convictions
also asks the Court to “expunge all the disciplinary
convictions described in this complaint.” [R. 21-2 at
2]. Warren, however, has not put forth clear factual
allegations regarding these convictions and, in any event,
“he must challenge his disciplinary conviction[s] by
way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, not by way of a Bivens civil rights
action.” Tomlinson v. Holder, No. 7:11-cv-140,
2011 WL 5330724, at *5 (E.D. Ky. 2011). In other words,