Filed: Jul. 22, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-22-2008 Vernon Douglas v. USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1967 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Vernon Douglas v. USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 815. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/815 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of t
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-22-2008 Vernon Douglas v. USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1967 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Vernon Douglas v. USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 815. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/815 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of th..
More
Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-22-2008
Vernon Douglas v. USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-1967
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Vernon Douglas v. USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 815.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/815
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
ALD-239 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-1967
___________
VERNON DOUGLAS,
a/k/a Leverne Douglas,
a/k/a Spider
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VERNON DOUGLAS,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 08-00140)
District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit
LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 3, 2008
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 22, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
1
Vernon Douglas, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his Bivens
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We will summarily vacate in part and
summarily affirm in part.
Douglas sued the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and individual officers for violating
his civil rights. Douglas alleges that he was convicted in federal court for an unspecified
offense, and that the sentencing judge imposed a sentence of imprisonment, but no fine.
He alleges that J. Kaminski, a Correctional Treatment Specialist at USP-Allenwood,
coerced him into signing an Inmate Financial Responsibility Plan (“IFRP”) contract, even
though Douglas did not owe any “fine.” Douglas alleges that Kaminski unlawfully
deducted $14 from his prison account six days before his payment was due under the
IFRP. Douglas further alleges that Acting Warden William Ey, Warden R. Martinez, D.
Scott Dodrill, of the BOP Northeast Regional Office, and H. Watts, Administrator at the
Central Office, denied or failed to respond to his grievances, and failed to rectify the
premature deduction of funds from his account. Douglas also alleges that this Court
vacated his sentence on June 14, 2007, and the docket of the sentencing court indicates
that Douglas has not yet been resentenced.
The Magistrate Judge screened Douglas’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and recommended dismissal without leave to amend. Douglas sought an
extension of time to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation,
2
as well as leave to file an amended complaint, but the District Court adopted the report
and recommendation and denied those motions in its order of dismissal. Douglas moved
for reconsideration, again asking to amend his complaint. The District Court denied
Douglas the opportunity to amend on the ground that amendment would be futile.1
We do not believe that amendment would be futile. Contrary to the Magistrate
Judge’s report, Douglas’s sentence has been vacated, and he has not been resentenced.2
As such, Douglas’s current sentence does not include a fine or special assessment, and
Douglas asserts that certain BOP defendants failed to refund his money after his sentence
was vacated. The Magistrate Judge also noted that Douglas did not name the correct
parties, and that a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act might be appropriate. Under
these circumstances, the District Court should have allowed Douglas to amend his
complaint. Therefore, we will summarily vacate the District Court’s order, except to the
extent it dismissed Douglas’s Bivens claim against the BOP, as Douglas may not bring a
Bivens action against the agency. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer,
510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). We will
affirm the District Court’s dismissal of his Bivens claim against the BOP.
1
Under Rule 15(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., a plaintiff may amend his complaint “once as a
matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading has been served.” Instead of
simply filing an amended complaint, Douglas filed a motion for leave to amend his
complaint. Under these circumstances, the District Court had discretion to deny leave to
amend if such amendment would be futile. Centifanti v. Nix,
865 F.2d 1422, 1431 (3d
Cir. 1989).
2
According to the docket, Douglas is scheduled to be resentenced on July 30, 2008.
USA v. Douglas, E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 05-00038-RBS-1.
3