Plaintiff's reply in brief in response to defendant's response brief and in support of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
cocoselulinaripat
972 views
35 slides
Aug 03, 2012
Slide 1 of 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
About This Presentation
No description available for this slideshow.
Slide Content
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 1 of 35
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
‘THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
STEVENM Roge
a
OE Maa,
‘TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU,
Plaintiff,
DISMAS CHARITIES, INC, ANA GISPERT,
DEREK THOMAS and LASHANDA ADAMS
Defendants
NTIEF'S REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO DI NDS 13
AND IN SUPPORT OF THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
Plaintiff Traian Bejduveanu (Pro Se Litigant) hereafter known as “Movant” files this
response to the Defendant's Reply Brief, in Support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment and states as follows:
Introduction
Defendant Dismas Charities, Inc. a non-profit corporation $01(+)(3) organization, who
‘operates 28 halfway houses in 13 states that contract from the U.S, Govemment, of which Co-
defendants Ana Gispert, Derek Tomas and Lashanda Adams are employees of Dismas Charities,
Inc, entered into the docket on 1/12/2012 a brief in response to the Movant's response bre!
‘which they made an “attempt” to assert thatthe Movant, is unable to state a basis for his claims,
‘whether ofa constitutional or tortious nature. The Defendants’ response brief was simply that,
‘an “attempt, as they failed to address and/or rebut the core elements of the PlaintifPs
arguments, and more importantly their arguments are devoid of the truth, and factual statements
indicating thatthe Defendants’ actions were in complete compliance with guidelines set forth
both by the Department of Corrections as well as Movant's protections inherent within the
Constitution, This response to the Defendants reply bref, will again rebut the Defendant's
arguments, and will add additional clarity to the contentions originally made in the Movant's
‘Complaint, Motion for Summary Judgment tothe Court, and his response brief to the Defendants
response brief.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
‘THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
STEVENM Roge
a
OE Maa,
‘TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU,
Plaintiff,
DISMAS CHARITIES, INC, ANA GISPERT,
DEREK THOMAS and LASHANDA ADAMS
Defendants
NTIEF'S REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO DI NDS 13
AND IN SUPPORT OF THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
Plaintiff Traian Bejduveanu (Pro Se Litigant) hereafter known as “Movant” files this
response to the Defendant's Reply Brief, in Support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment and states as follows:
Introduction
Defendant Dismas Charities, Inc. a non-profit corporation $01(+)(3) organization, who
‘operates 28 halfway houses in 13 states that contract from the U.S, Govemment, of which Co-
defendants Ana Gispert, Derek Tomas and Lashanda Adams are employees of Dismas Charities,
Inc, entered into the docket on 1/12/2012 a brief in response to the Movant's response bre!
‘which they made an “attempt” to assert thatthe Movant, is unable to state a basis for his claims,
‘whether ofa constitutional or tortious nature. The Defendants’ response brief was simply that,
‘an “attempt, as they failed to address and/or rebut the core elements of the PlaintifPs
arguments, and more importantly their arguments are devoid of the truth, and factual statements
indicating thatthe Defendants’ actions were in complete compliance with guidelines set forth
both by the Department of Corrections as well as Movant's protections inherent within the
Constitution, This response to the Defendants reply bref, will again rebut the Defendant's
arguments, and will add additional clarity to the contentions originally made in the Movant's
‘Complaint, Motion for Summary Judgment tothe Court, and his response brief to the Defendants
response brief.
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 2 of 35
Factual Background
On July, 28, 2010, with the approval of CCM Director Carlos Rodriguez the Movant was
transfer from Colman Low Correctional Facility to Dismas Charities, Inc. halfway house, located
in Dania, Florida. As is noted above, Defendant Dismas Charities, Ine. is non-profit corporation
501(c)(3) organization, who operates 28 halfway houses in 13 states that contract from the U.S.
Government, of which Co-defendants Ana Gispert, Derek Tomas and Lashanda Adams are
employees of Dismas Charities Incorporation.
{Upon arrival at Dismas Charities facility, the Movant signed received a packet containing.
the Dismas Halfway House Regulations, but did not receive a Dismas Charities Handbook, as
there were none available at the time of his arriva. Its important to note that the Dismas
Halfway House Regulations book is not the same as Handbook and does not contain the same
information as it is only a cursory overview ofthe policies and procedures contained within the
hhandbook, and the handbook docketed as evidence has been modified since the Movants second
arrest and lawsuit. The Movant provided the appropriate staff members with copies of his driver
license, diving history from the Division of Motor Vehicles in Tallahassee, vehicle registration,
and valid insurance, in compliance withthe terms and conditions necessary to obtain permission.
10 operate a motor vehicle during supervision. Be that as it may, the reason for which the
Movant was not approved to drive, as contended by the Defendants, is unknown even today. It
was for this reason that the Plaintiff did not feel as though he was violating the terms oF his
confinement when on October 13, 2010, the Movant drove his family vehicle to Dismas halfway
house for his bi-weekly report
‘An ilegal search was conducted of the vehicle that Movant drove and property was
removed from the vehicle without the knowledge of he Movant and without the Movant being
present at the search. Defendants asserted that a cellular telephone, a phone charger and a packet
‘of cigarettes were found in the glove compartment ofthe car and confiscated. Data and evidence
from the surveillance cameras that contained information regarding the illegal search and seizure
‘were intentionally destroyed.
During his resideney at Dismas House, the Movant was constantly terrorized,
intimidated, and humiliated without any regard for his medical conditions or his dignity, in that
he was forced to do cleaning jobs which were in direct violation of his doctor's directives
‘doctor's orders, even going as far as to prevent his medical treatment, adding insult Lo injury, In
violation of his Tite VII protections, the Movant was discriminated and harassed constantly, by
the Defendants, because he was a foreigner, spoke with an accent, practiced Greek-Orthodox
Religion, and is white
On October 20, 2010, at 6:30 AM . while sleeping in his bed at Dismas House, the
‘movant was arrested by two U.S. Marshall agents and transported to F.D.C. Miami, without any
charges levied against him and without Due Process of Law. The incarceration was done
without the knowledge of USPO and CCM Director, Carlos Rodriguez, as he did not sign the
papers for the incarceration, thus making it clear thatthe Defendants engaged ina campaign of
2
Factual Background
On July, 28, 2010, with the approval of CCM Director Carlos Rodriguez the Movant was
transfer from Colman Low Correctional Facility to Dismas Charities, Inc. halfway house, located
in Dania, Florida. As is noted above, Defendant Dismas Charities, Ine. is non-profit corporation
501(c)(3) organization, who operates 28 halfway houses in 13 states that contract from the U.S.
Government, of which Co-defendants Ana Gispert, Derek Tomas and Lashanda Adams are
employees of Dismas Charities Incorporation.
{Upon arrival at Dismas Charities facility, the Movant signed received a packet containing.
the Dismas Halfway House Regulations, but did not receive a Dismas Charities Handbook, as
there were none available at the time of his arriva. Its important to note that the Dismas
Halfway House Regulations book is not the same as Handbook and does not contain the same
information as it is only a cursory overview ofthe policies and procedures contained within the
hhandbook, and the handbook docketed as evidence has been modified since the Movants second
arrest and lawsuit. The Movant provided the appropriate staff members with copies of his driver
license, diving history from the Division of Motor Vehicles in Tallahassee, vehicle registration,
and valid insurance, in compliance withthe terms and conditions necessary to obtain permission.
10 operate a motor vehicle during supervision. Be that as it may, the reason for which the
Movant was not approved to drive, as contended by the Defendants, is unknown even today. It
was for this reason that the Plaintiff did not feel as though he was violating the terms oF his
confinement when on October 13, 2010, the Movant drove his family vehicle to Dismas halfway
house for his bi-weekly report
‘An ilegal search was conducted of the vehicle that Movant drove and property was
removed from the vehicle without the knowledge of he Movant and without the Movant being
present at the search. Defendants asserted that a cellular telephone, a phone charger and a packet
‘of cigarettes were found in the glove compartment ofthe car and confiscated. Data and evidence
from the surveillance cameras that contained information regarding the illegal search and seizure
‘were intentionally destroyed.
During his resideney at Dismas House, the Movant was constantly terrorized,
intimidated, and humiliated without any regard for his medical conditions or his dignity, in that
he was forced to do cleaning jobs which were in direct violation of his doctor's directives
‘doctor's orders, even going as far as to prevent his medical treatment, adding insult Lo injury, In
violation of his Tite VII protections, the Movant was discriminated and harassed constantly, by
the Defendants, because he was a foreigner, spoke with an accent, practiced Greek-Orthodox
Religion, and is white
On October 20, 2010, at 6:30 AM . while sleeping in his bed at Dismas House, the
‘movant was arrested by two U.S. Marshall agents and transported to F.D.C. Miami, without any
charges levied against him and without Due Process of Law. The incarceration was done
without the knowledge of USPO and CCM Director, Carlos Rodriguez, as he did not sign the
papers for the incarceration, thus making it clear thatthe Defendants engaged ina campaign of
2
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 3 of 35
erasing evidence and fabricating documents in order to cover up any suspicion of the events.
“The Movant is aware thatthe following documents have been fabricated (Movant’s Exhibit,
Documents #38, 41, 53, 58, 60, 61, 66). No federal employee of F.D.C. wanted to get involved
‘with hs cas, they were aware ofthe covert and ilegal actions of the Defendant, Federal
Department of Corrections Miami Counselor Price and Unit Manager Harrison, under the strict
suggestions ofthe F.D.C. warden, attempted in a few instances to contact the office of CCM
Director, Carlos Rodriguez, to no avail. The Movant was ultimately released from F.D.C, Miami
on January 03, 2011.
Direct Response to Defendant's Arguments and Citation to Authority
1. The Plaintiff cannot maintain any cause of action against any Defendant.
a. False Arrest and Imprisonment
‘The Defendants’ in their response brief make three erroneous assertions about the
plaintiff with regards to his arguments on false arest and imprisonment:
|. “Plintift fils o set forth any facts demonstrating a false imprisonment or arrest by
any specific Defendant" (p.3 of Defendants’ response brief),
2. “The Plaintiff was under the misguided impression that he was a “free man” during
his time at Dismas” (p.3 of Defendants’ response brief).
3. “Third, the Defendants did not arrest or imprison the Plaintif” (p. 3 of Defendants”
response brief),
Lets take a moment to address the Defendants’ first and third erroncous claims that
Plaintiff fails to set forth any facts demonstrating a false imprisonment or arrest by any
specific Defendant, and that the Defendants did not arrest or imprison the Plaintiff. As
slated in Movant's previous brief, it was the direct and indirect actions ofthe Defendant
‘hich lead tothe confinement of the Movant. Causation is, of course, a required element of
a false imprisonment. See Oviatt v, Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992). A
probation! parole officer need not actually use force to detain a probation parolee illegally.
‘Although false imprisonment usually follows false arrest, false imprisonment may take
place even after a valid arrest, In all of the Reponses and briefs from the Defendants, they
claim that thatthe Movant was charged introducing contraband to the facility, when in fact
he was charged with a violation 108, which specifically, “Possession, Manufacture, or
introduction of a hazardous tool (Tools most likely to be used in an escape or escape
attempt orto serve as a weapon capable of doing of doing serious bodily harm to others; or
those hazardous to institutional security or personal safety”, to include that of a cell phone
First and foremost, a cel phone unless used a detonation device cannot be seen as threat to.
personal or institutional safety. At best this alleged violation should have been charged as a
Code 305, “Possession of anything not authorized for retention or receipt by the inmate, not
issued to through regular channels. Now, why would the Defendants’ increase the charges
against the plaintiff such that they are more severe? The answer to that question is simple.
A violation 108 would have required the Plaintiff's removal from the facility back to federal
Prison, whereas if he was charged appropriately, in-house sanctions would have sufficed
3
erasing evidence and fabricating documents in order to cover up any suspicion of the events.
“The Movant is aware thatthe following documents have been fabricated (Movant’s Exhibit,
Documents #38, 41, 53, 58, 60, 61, 66). No federal employee of F.D.C. wanted to get involved
‘with hs cas, they were aware ofthe covert and ilegal actions of the Defendant, Federal
Department of Corrections Miami Counselor Price and Unit Manager Harrison, under the strict
suggestions ofthe F.D.C. warden, attempted in a few instances to contact the office of CCM
Director, Carlos Rodriguez, to no avail. The Movant was ultimately released from F.D.C, Miami
on January 03, 2011.
Direct Response to Defendant's Arguments and Citation to Authority
1. The Plaintiff cannot maintain any cause of action against any Defendant.
a. False Arrest and Imprisonment
‘The Defendants’ in their response brief make three erroneous assertions about the
plaintiff with regards to his arguments on false arest and imprisonment:
|. “Plintift fils o set forth any facts demonstrating a false imprisonment or arrest by
any specific Defendant" (p.3 of Defendants’ response brief),
2. “The Plaintiff was under the misguided impression that he was a “free man” during
his time at Dismas” (p.3 of Defendants’ response brief).
3. “Third, the Defendants did not arrest or imprison the Plaintif” (p. 3 of Defendants”
response brief),
Lets take a moment to address the Defendants’ first and third erroncous claims that
Plaintiff fails to set forth any facts demonstrating a false imprisonment or arrest by any
specific Defendant, and that the Defendants did not arrest or imprison the Plaintiff. As
slated in Movant's previous brief, it was the direct and indirect actions ofthe Defendant
‘hich lead tothe confinement of the Movant. Causation is, of course, a required element of
a false imprisonment. See Oviatt v, Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992). A
probation! parole officer need not actually use force to detain a probation parolee illegally.
‘Although false imprisonment usually follows false arrest, false imprisonment may take
place even after a valid arrest, In all of the Reponses and briefs from the Defendants, they
claim that thatthe Movant was charged introducing contraband to the facility, when in fact
he was charged with a violation 108, which specifically, “Possession, Manufacture, or
introduction of a hazardous tool (Tools most likely to be used in an escape or escape
attempt orto serve as a weapon capable of doing of doing serious bodily harm to others; or
those hazardous to institutional security or personal safety”, to include that of a cell phone
First and foremost, a cel phone unless used a detonation device cannot be seen as threat to.
personal or institutional safety. At best this alleged violation should have been charged as a
Code 305, “Possession of anything not authorized for retention or receipt by the inmate, not
issued to through regular channels. Now, why would the Defendants’ increase the charges
against the plaintiff such that they are more severe? The answer to that question is simple.
A violation 108 would have required the Plaintiff's removal from the facility back to federal
Prison, whereas if he was charged appropriately, in-house sanctions would have sufficed
3
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 4 of 35
Going back to the case law and arguments asserted in our previous response, a police officer
may be held to have “initiated” a criminal proceeding if he knowingly provided false
information to the prosecutor or otherwise interfered with the prosecutor's informed
discretion. See, Reed, 77 F.3d at 1054; Torres, 966 F Supp. at 1365. In such cases, “an
intelligent exercise ofthe .. [prosecutor's] discretion becomes impossible,” and a
prosecution based on the false information is deemed “procured by the person giving the
{alse information.” However, a private citizen may be held liable for false arrest under $
1983 if he or she caused the plaintiff tobe arrested by virtue of false statements he or she
made (othe police. Doby v. DeCrescenzo, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13175, "40 (E.D. Pa.
Sept.9, 1996). Thus, our claim is clear, the Defendants didnot place the Plain in
handeuff, they did however provided false and misleading statements to the Bureau of
Prisons such that their ability to levy justice was impaired and the Plaintiff was denied the
privilege of the freedoms that come with having completed a prison sentence and being.
afforded community monitoring ina halfway house facility
Which leads us to address the Defendants’ second contention, the Plaintiff was
under the misguided impression that he was a “ree man” during his time at Dismas. At
no point did the Movant see himself as a free man during his time at Dismas, and the
“Movant operating an automobile while under the assumption that he was authorized to do
so does not justify the Defendants’ claim. Let's not mix apples with oranges, contrary to.
‘the Defendants" statements, the Movant was not a federal prisoner confined to a federal
facility, and thus could not be rearrested, he was a federal iamate afforded the privilege
‘of dwelling in a halfway house and home confinement due to his health. As we made
clear in our previous brief, the courts on the other hand have seen being on parole or in
halfway house as being more than just a privilege. The Court has found protected liberty
interests after an inmate is released from institutional confinement. In Morrisey v.
Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), Ihe Court recognized a parole’ liberty interest in
remaining conditionally free on parole: "{H]e can be gainfully employed and is free to be
with family and friends and to form the other enduring attachments of normal life. -
[His condition is very different from that of confinement in a prison.” Id. at 482. Relying
‘on Morrissey, the Court in Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143 (1997), held that an inmate
enrolled in Oklahoma's pre-parole program also had a protected liberty interest entitling
him to due process before he could be removed from the program. There the pre-parolee
"was released from prison before the expiration of his sentence. He kept his own
residence; he sought, obtained, and maintained a job; and he lived a life generally free of
the incidents of imprisonment." By vie of the Defendants’ willful disregard for
‘Movants right to this privilege, the plaintiff suffered damages and opportunity cost, for
ot being able 10 live not as free man, but as a man who has earned the privilege of being
free of correctional institutional confinement.
‘The Defendants’ argument that, “even if any ofthe Defendants could arrestor
imprison the Plaintiff a privilege exist as a matter of law to engage in reckless or even
outrageous conduct if there is suficien evidence that shows the Defendant did no more
than asser legal rights in a permissible way.” There is nothing legal or permissible about
trumping up charges such hat they cause an outcome that suited the Defendants’ inherent
disgust and dislike for Movant, in that there are documented cases of State Attomeys that
have been convicted of criminal charges for padding files with false charges and arrests.
4
Going back to the case law and arguments asserted in our previous response, a police officer
may be held to have “initiated” a criminal proceeding if he knowingly provided false
information to the prosecutor or otherwise interfered with the prosecutor's informed
discretion. See, Reed, 77 F.3d at 1054; Torres, 966 F Supp. at 1365. In such cases, “an
intelligent exercise ofthe .. [prosecutor's] discretion becomes impossible,” and a
prosecution based on the false information is deemed “procured by the person giving the
{alse information.” However, a private citizen may be held liable for false arrest under $
1983 if he or she caused the plaintiff tobe arrested by virtue of false statements he or she
made (othe police. Doby v. DeCrescenzo, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13175, "40 (E.D. Pa.
Sept.9, 1996). Thus, our claim is clear, the Defendants didnot place the Plain in
handeuff, they did however provided false and misleading statements to the Bureau of
Prisons such that their ability to levy justice was impaired and the Plaintiff was denied the
privilege of the freedoms that come with having completed a prison sentence and being.
afforded community monitoring ina halfway house facility
Which leads us to address the Defendants’ second contention, the Plaintiff was
under the misguided impression that he was a “ree man” during his time at Dismas. At
no point did the Movant see himself as a free man during his time at Dismas, and the
“Movant operating an automobile while under the assumption that he was authorized to do
so does not justify the Defendants’ claim. Let's not mix apples with oranges, contrary to.
‘the Defendants" statements, the Movant was not a federal prisoner confined to a federal
facility, and thus could not be rearrested, he was a federal iamate afforded the privilege
‘of dwelling in a halfway house and home confinement due to his health. As we made
clear in our previous brief, the courts on the other hand have seen being on parole or in
halfway house as being more than just a privilege. The Court has found protected liberty
interests after an inmate is released from institutional confinement. In Morrisey v.
Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), Ihe Court recognized a parole’ liberty interest in
remaining conditionally free on parole: "{H]e can be gainfully employed and is free to be
with family and friends and to form the other enduring attachments of normal life. -
[His condition is very different from that of confinement in a prison.” Id. at 482. Relying
‘on Morrissey, the Court in Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143 (1997), held that an inmate
enrolled in Oklahoma's pre-parole program also had a protected liberty interest entitling
him to due process before he could be removed from the program. There the pre-parolee
"was released from prison before the expiration of his sentence. He kept his own
residence; he sought, obtained, and maintained a job; and he lived a life generally free of
the incidents of imprisonment." By vie of the Defendants’ willful disregard for
‘Movants right to this privilege, the plaintiff suffered damages and opportunity cost, for
ot being able 10 live not as free man, but as a man who has earned the privilege of being
free of correctional institutional confinement.
‘The Defendants’ argument that, “even if any ofthe Defendants could arrestor
imprison the Plaintiff a privilege exist as a matter of law to engage in reckless or even
outrageous conduct if there is suficien evidence that shows the Defendant did no more
than asser legal rights in a permissible way.” There is nothing legal or permissible about
trumping up charges such hat they cause an outcome that suited the Defendants’ inherent
disgust and dislike for Movant, in that there are documented cases of State Attomeys that
have been convicted of criminal charges for padding files with false charges and arrests.
4
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 5 of 35
In this case the Defendants are no différent and it is for this reason that Movant should be
awarded summary judgment
b. Assault and Battery
‘The Defendants’ again deviate from the truth when they claim that Movant argued
thatthe Plaintiff's made an assertion that, “Not providing a BP-9 and BP-10 form
constitutes an assault and battery” (p. 4 Defendants brief response). The Defendants’ are
‘again attempting to convolute the issue by mistating the facts, in that we simply agreed
with the Defendant’ assertion in their motion for summary judgment that PlaintifT has
not provided any facts to support allegations of assault and battery. The Movant's
statement was not an equation of assault and battery with the denial of these forms, but
rather to make the case that, “no such record of the assaults and battery that took place as
the Defendant's refused to provide the Movant with and means of documenting said
actions.” Anna Gispert’s admission of not having provided BP-9 forms to Movant,
provides the Movant no means of documenting the abuses of process, abuses of
Constitutional rights and civil liberties on the part of the Defendants, and even goes to the
extent of providing the Movant very litle material documentation of his experiences at
‘the halfway house, which was the intention of he Defendants’ all along, essentially
concealing and covering up their misconduct. As we argued previously the courts have
made it clear that, in Allen v. Me Morris, No, 4:06-cv-810 SNL, 2007 WL 172564, at *2
(ED. Mo. Jan. 19, 2007) “holding allegation that prisoner could not get grievance policy
or forms barred summary judgment for defendants”, and because of his Court has an
obligation to deny the Defendant's request for summary judgment, and the Movant
should be awarded summary judgment
©. Malicious Prosecution
Even withthe Movants eloquent and cogent rebuttal ofthe Defendants" claim
thatthe Movant has not, and cannot establish the elements of malicious prosecution,
especially the key elements of the commencement of judicial proceeding on the plaintiff,
by the defendant and termination ofthe in favor ofthe Plain, thatthe Defendants must
be awarded summary judgment. The fact of the mate is that “AN federal claims for
malicious prosecution are borrowed from the common law tor... [which] imposes
lability on a private person who insite criminal proceedings against an innocent
person without probable cause for an improper purpose. The federal claim under [42
US.C} section 1983 for malicious prosecution differs from the slate civil sui that it
requires that state officials acting under color of law institute the criminal proceedings
against the plaintiff and thereby deprive him of rights secured under the Constitution."
Torres v. Superintendent of Police, 893 F.2d 404, 409 (Ist Ci. 1990).
‘The Plaintiff was not guilty of introducing hazardous materials ino a correctional
facility, as his cell phone was simply contraband, and not something that could be
used to escape, or harm the welfare of those in the facility. Moreover, this cellphone
was contraband for individuals staying at Dismas facilities, and were not contraband
for an individual on home confinement. Furthermore, the cell phone in his vehicle,
might inthe case of drug possession constitute material possession, however given
5
In this case the Defendants are no différent and it is for this reason that Movant should be
awarded summary judgment
b. Assault and Battery
‘The Defendants’ again deviate from the truth when they claim that Movant argued
thatthe Plaintiff's made an assertion that, “Not providing a BP-9 and BP-10 form
constitutes an assault and battery” (p. 4 Defendants brief response). The Defendants’ are
‘again attempting to convolute the issue by mistating the facts, in that we simply agreed
with the Defendant’ assertion in their motion for summary judgment that PlaintifT has
not provided any facts to support allegations of assault and battery. The Movant's
statement was not an equation of assault and battery with the denial of these forms, but
rather to make the case that, “no such record of the assaults and battery that took place as
the Defendant's refused to provide the Movant with and means of documenting said
actions.” Anna Gispert’s admission of not having provided BP-9 forms to Movant,
provides the Movant no means of documenting the abuses of process, abuses of
Constitutional rights and civil liberties on the part of the Defendants, and even goes to the
extent of providing the Movant very litle material documentation of his experiences at
‘the halfway house, which was the intention of he Defendants’ all along, essentially
concealing and covering up their misconduct. As we argued previously the courts have
made it clear that, in Allen v. Me Morris, No, 4:06-cv-810 SNL, 2007 WL 172564, at *2
(ED. Mo. Jan. 19, 2007) “holding allegation that prisoner could not get grievance policy
or forms barred summary judgment for defendants”, and because of his Court has an
obligation to deny the Defendant's request for summary judgment, and the Movant
should be awarded summary judgment
©. Malicious Prosecution
Even withthe Movants eloquent and cogent rebuttal ofthe Defendants" claim
thatthe Movant has not, and cannot establish the elements of malicious prosecution,
especially the key elements of the commencement of judicial proceeding on the plaintiff,
by the defendant and termination ofthe in favor ofthe Plain, thatthe Defendants must
be awarded summary judgment. The fact of the mate is that “AN federal claims for
malicious prosecution are borrowed from the common law tor... [which] imposes
lability on a private person who insite criminal proceedings against an innocent
person without probable cause for an improper purpose. The federal claim under [42
US.C} section 1983 for malicious prosecution differs from the slate civil sui that it
requires that state officials acting under color of law institute the criminal proceedings
against the plaintiff and thereby deprive him of rights secured under the Constitution."
Torres v. Superintendent of Police, 893 F.2d 404, 409 (Ist Ci. 1990).
‘The Plaintiff was not guilty of introducing hazardous materials ino a correctional
facility, as his cell phone was simply contraband, and not something that could be
used to escape, or harm the welfare of those in the facility. Moreover, this cellphone
was contraband for individuals staying at Dismas facilities, and were not contraband
for an individual on home confinement. Furthermore, the cell phone in his vehicle,
might inthe case of drug possession constitute material possession, however given
5
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 6 of 35
the fact that he was not attempting to introduce it into the facility on his perso, and
was i fact inthe glove compartment of his vehicle unbeknownst tothe Movant does
‘not constitute actual or material possession. The plaintiff was under the assumption
that he was able to drive, and his ignorance ofthe process does not take away from
is guilt, but him operating a motor vehicle i not the reason that he was taken back to
prison, as that would have been something addressed in-house through Dismas
‘correctional procedures, but rather it was he charge having introduced hazardous
‘material hat constituted his denial of his parole. Given the fact hat the Defendants*
‘were searching for any reason to have Movant's parole revoked, due to their personal
hatred for Plaintif and what he stood for, ating under the color of the law,
Defendants intentionally mis-ndictd anti, thus constituting the Movants claim
for malicious prosecution, and consequently depriving him of rights scoured under the
Constitution, as he had served his debt 0 society in prison confinement ths earning
him the privilege of parole.
‘The Defendants want the Movant to address al the individual elements of
‘malicious prosecution because they are aware their actions denied the Movant the
ability to show how alleged conduct deprived him of liberty, by a distortion and
corruption of the processes of law, i, falsification of evidence, mischarging him
violations that where much greater than his actions, and other egregious conduct
namely the denial of documents necessary to ensuring due process, resulting
‘ultimately in the denial and revocation of his parole, and i is for this reason that
‘Movant should be awarded summary judgment.
&. Abuse of Process
‘The Defendants make the claim that for Plaintif to support a cause of action for
abuse of process, “the Plaintiff must prove thatthe process was used for an immediate
purpose other than which it was designed” (p. 6 Defendants' response brief). These
processes and procedures put in place by the Department of Corrections where not put
into place to deny the Plaintiff's rights and privileges, and the Movant further asserts that
these procedures and processes were not put into place to cover up the Defendants"
‘willful misconduct and misdoings. The Defendants are basically asserting that because
their fabrication of documents, untruthful statements, and padded files achieves the
purpose of punishing the defendant, that itis justified, The fact of the matter is that an
abuse of process occurs when there, “is a cause of action in tort arising from one party
making a malicious and deliberate misuse or perversion of regularly issued court process
(civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action” (Wolff v. MeDonnell, 418
US. 539, 94 $.Ct 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). This is what has occurred in the case
‘of the Plaintiff, and the Movant is so sure of assertion, that he challenges the Defendants
to produce documents that are in Sentry entered and stamped withthe proper signatures
and dates. The Plaintiff and the Defendants both know that that these forms do not exist
as they would have been documented as evidence of compliance with due process and
law arrest by the Defendants. Again, all that has been provided are fabricated
documents, and PlaintfT has in his previous response statement provided exhibits of
instances in which employees admonishing others to fabricate documents. Ifthe
the fact that he was not attempting to introduce it into the facility on his perso, and
was i fact inthe glove compartment of his vehicle unbeknownst tothe Movant does
‘not constitute actual or material possession. The plaintiff was under the assumption
that he was able to drive, and his ignorance ofthe process does not take away from
is guilt, but him operating a motor vehicle i not the reason that he was taken back to
prison, as that would have been something addressed in-house through Dismas
‘correctional procedures, but rather it was he charge having introduced hazardous
‘material hat constituted his denial of his parole. Given the fact hat the Defendants*
‘were searching for any reason to have Movant's parole revoked, due to their personal
hatred for Plaintif and what he stood for, ating under the color of the law,
Defendants intentionally mis-ndictd anti, thus constituting the Movants claim
for malicious prosecution, and consequently depriving him of rights scoured under the
Constitution, as he had served his debt 0 society in prison confinement ths earning
him the privilege of parole.
‘The Defendants want the Movant to address al the individual elements of
‘malicious prosecution because they are aware their actions denied the Movant the
ability to show how alleged conduct deprived him of liberty, by a distortion and
corruption of the processes of law, i, falsification of evidence, mischarging him
violations that where much greater than his actions, and other egregious conduct
namely the denial of documents necessary to ensuring due process, resulting
‘ultimately in the denial and revocation of his parole, and i is for this reason that
‘Movant should be awarded summary judgment.
&. Abuse of Process
‘The Defendants make the claim that for Plaintif to support a cause of action for
abuse of process, “the Plaintiff must prove thatthe process was used for an immediate
purpose other than which it was designed” (p. 6 Defendants' response brief). These
processes and procedures put in place by the Department of Corrections where not put
into place to deny the Plaintiff's rights and privileges, and the Movant further asserts that
these procedures and processes were not put into place to cover up the Defendants"
‘willful misconduct and misdoings. The Defendants are basically asserting that because
their fabrication of documents, untruthful statements, and padded files achieves the
purpose of punishing the defendant, that itis justified, The fact of the matter is that an
abuse of process occurs when there, “is a cause of action in tort arising from one party
making a malicious and deliberate misuse or perversion of regularly issued court process
(civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action” (Wolff v. MeDonnell, 418
US. 539, 94 $.Ct 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). This is what has occurred in the case
‘of the Plaintiff, and the Movant is so sure of assertion, that he challenges the Defendants
to produce documents that are in Sentry entered and stamped withthe proper signatures
and dates. The Plaintiff and the Defendants both know that that these forms do not exist
as they would have been documented as evidence of compliance with due process and
law arrest by the Defendants. Again, all that has been provided are fabricated
documents, and PlaintfT has in his previous response statement provided exhibits of
instances in which employees admonishing others to fabricate documents. Ifthe
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 7 of 35
Movant's claims to this end are, “unsubstantiated and self-serving” as the Defendants
assert in their most recent response brie, then the Defendants should have no trouble
providing evidence of said documents being entered into the Sentry system that are
compliance with guidelines from the National Archives and Records Administration and
the CCM, rather than the documents they have provided that are wrought with the
Defendants’ mistakes and inaccuracies as a result oftheir haste to cover up their
‘misdeeds. Accordingly, the Movant should be awarded summary judgment.
Negligence and Gross Negligence
‘he Defendants claim thatthe Plaintiffs to maintain a case of ation for
negigence or gross negligence because the Plaintiff camot show a duty owed bythe
Defendants that was breached, or damages that flowed from any alleged breach of
duty. The Defendants even go as far as painting themselves are caring and
compassionate claiming rat they made the rcommendstion hat the Movant nat
participate in any manual activities. However, in on page 3 of Exhibit A to this
response points out an instance in which Ana Gispet, that he believes that “dusting
qualifies", hus giving him adretve to perform manual labor. After days and days
of harassment in Ms. Gsper's absence, the Movant sent an email an email within
Dismas Chartes internal system indicating, “pan and iscomfart in my liver”
(Exhibit A,p-& 10 this response). Yet again in ter dated 10/19/2010, the plis?
‘rot, “this eter is to advise you hat today, 10/19/2010, 10:50 A.M, Iwas called o
the front desk and told that 1 should vacuum the room or hm, in an attempt o
intimidate me" He goes on o state that“. sa result of al actions against me, or
the last week, by Mr. Thomas and his staff, my liver has swollen and I do experience
pan” (Exhibit p. 4, to this response). The Movant went onto request a BP-9 form
the same letter, and did so S times within th correspondences within the Exhibit B,
in addition o countess verbal quest fr these forms, Its lar that from just the
intemal correspondences alone, thatthe Defendants breached their duty, and their
denial ofthe BP form was oly an temp prevent ny farther documentation of
the violations of breach of duty and the obvious damages that resulted from the
harasment, forced manual labor that exacerbated the Movant's medical condition, of
which the Defendants aware ofthe damage being caus, as evident in Mrs. Gispert'
promise to address the issue with Mr. Thomas (Exhibit A, p. 4, to this response).
Therefore, he Defendants’ argument that plant's motion for summary judgment is,
“devoid of any proper facts supporting any negligence, claims of forced mana abo
constant terized and intimidated, and permite o accept meals form his wi”, is
et anther diversion from the tah as proof ofthe negligent acts onthe art o he
defendant, and the direct and proximate damages hat resulted tothe plain are
documented in Dismas Charities own intemal messaging system (Defendant's
response, .7). Inthe Plain’ previous response to Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment he asserted that, prison oficial volts prisoner's Eighth
“Amendment rights, andi dered negligent ¡hehe i deliberately indifferent to the
a
Movant's claims to this end are, “unsubstantiated and self-serving” as the Defendants
assert in their most recent response brie, then the Defendants should have no trouble
providing evidence of said documents being entered into the Sentry system that are
compliance with guidelines from the National Archives and Records Administration and
the CCM, rather than the documents they have provided that are wrought with the
Defendants’ mistakes and inaccuracies as a result oftheir haste to cover up their
‘misdeeds. Accordingly, the Movant should be awarded summary judgment.
Negligence and Gross Negligence
‘he Defendants claim thatthe Plaintiffs to maintain a case of ation for
negigence or gross negligence because the Plaintiff camot show a duty owed bythe
Defendants that was breached, or damages that flowed from any alleged breach of
duty. The Defendants even go as far as painting themselves are caring and
compassionate claiming rat they made the rcommendstion hat the Movant nat
participate in any manual activities. However, in on page 3 of Exhibit A to this
response points out an instance in which Ana Gispet, that he believes that “dusting
qualifies", hus giving him adretve to perform manual labor. After days and days
of harassment in Ms. Gsper's absence, the Movant sent an email an email within
Dismas Chartes internal system indicating, “pan and iscomfart in my liver”
(Exhibit A,p-& 10 this response). Yet again in ter dated 10/19/2010, the plis?
‘rot, “this eter is to advise you hat today, 10/19/2010, 10:50 A.M, Iwas called o
the front desk and told that 1 should vacuum the room or hm, in an attempt o
intimidate me" He goes on o state that“. sa result of al actions against me, or
the last week, by Mr. Thomas and his staff, my liver has swollen and I do experience
pan” (Exhibit p. 4, to this response). The Movant went onto request a BP-9 form
the same letter, and did so S times within th correspondences within the Exhibit B,
in addition o countess verbal quest fr these forms, Its lar that from just the
intemal correspondences alone, thatthe Defendants breached their duty, and their
denial ofthe BP form was oly an temp prevent ny farther documentation of
the violations of breach of duty and the obvious damages that resulted from the
harasment, forced manual labor that exacerbated the Movant's medical condition, of
which the Defendants aware ofthe damage being caus, as evident in Mrs. Gispert'
promise to address the issue with Mr. Thomas (Exhibit A, p. 4, to this response).
Therefore, he Defendants’ argument that plant's motion for summary judgment is,
“devoid of any proper facts supporting any negligence, claims of forced mana abo
constant terized and intimidated, and permite o accept meals form his wi”, is
et anther diversion from the tah as proof ofthe negligent acts onthe art o he
defendant, and the direct and proximate damages hat resulted tothe plain are
documented in Dismas Charities own intemal messaging system (Defendant's
response, .7). Inthe Plain’ previous response to Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment he asserted that, prison oficial volts prisoner's Eighth
“Amendment rights, andi dered negligent ¡hehe i deliberately indifferent to the
a
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 8 of 35
prisoner's serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-04, 97
S.C 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Deliberate indifference encompasses only
‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain repugnant to the conscience of mankind.
See id.at 104-06, 97 S.Ct. 285. "Subjective recklessness," as used in the criminal law,
is the appropriate est for deliberate indifference. To incur ibility under $ 1983, an
individual must be personally involved in the deprivation ofa person's constitutional
rights. See Lozano v. Smith,718 F.2d 756, 768 (Sth Cir.1983), and for these reasons
the Movant request that the court grant his motion for summary judgment be
awarded.
2. The Complaint fails o allege any tortious conduct or violations of Federal Law
or the Constitution.
a. First Amendment
‘The Defendant makes the claim in his previous response brief that, “he (he
‘movant fils o provide any proper evidence demonstrating that he asked to attend
religious services outside a five mile radius and that his request was denied” (p.
Defendants response brief). Yet again we are forced to address yet another departure
‘rom the truth on the part of the Defendants. On 7/29/2010 the Movant made a request to
Lashonda Adams, in which he requested, and was denied the ability to attend a Romanian
‘Orthodox Church located on State Road 7, in Pembroke Pines, to which Ms. Adams.
replied that you are only allowed to travel within five miles of the facility for religious
services (Exhibit C, p 1 o this response). In fact, the Movant made, 2 other documented
request on 8/4/2010 and on 10/6/2010, all of which were denied by Ms. Adams (Exhibit
C, pp 2-3, to this response). All partes including the defendants are aware ofthe special
‘exception fo the (5) mile rule which states that, “an exception tothe rule will only be
made when your stated denomination of worship cannot be located within five miles of
the program”. (Exhibit tothe Plaimiff response for summary judgment). Yet again
because Defendants were convinced that they had covered up ther violation of the
Plaintiff's first Amendment right by denying him a BP-9 form, they felt convinced that
making a statement so far from the truth such as, “he (the movant) fails to provide any
proper evidence demonstrating that he asked to attend religious services outside a five
‘mile radius and that his request was denied”, but they failed to remember that their own
internal system contained the evidence that Movant would use to validate his claim for
violation of his first amendment right to freedom of religion, and accordingly, the
Movant should be awarded summary judgment,
b. Fourth Amendment-
‘The Defendants attempt to make Ihe case thats a condition ofthe Plaintis
parole hat he consented to “searches of his person and vehicle". However, the Pl
made it clear to individuals at Dismas House that he was simply operating a family
vehicle, to fulfil his required reporting requirements. Although the individuals inthe
halfway house had, right to search his person upon entering the building, the Supreme
viet
prisoner's serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-04, 97
S.C 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Deliberate indifference encompasses only
‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain repugnant to the conscience of mankind.
See id.at 104-06, 97 S.Ct. 285. "Subjective recklessness," as used in the criminal law,
is the appropriate est for deliberate indifference. To incur ibility under $ 1983, an
individual must be personally involved in the deprivation ofa person's constitutional
rights. See Lozano v. Smith,718 F.2d 756, 768 (Sth Cir.1983), and for these reasons
the Movant request that the court grant his motion for summary judgment be
awarded.
2. The Complaint fails o allege any tortious conduct or violations of Federal Law
or the Constitution.
a. First Amendment
‘The Defendant makes the claim in his previous response brief that, “he (he
‘movant fils o provide any proper evidence demonstrating that he asked to attend
religious services outside a five mile radius and that his request was denied” (p.
Defendants response brief). Yet again we are forced to address yet another departure
‘rom the truth on the part of the Defendants. On 7/29/2010 the Movant made a request to
Lashonda Adams, in which he requested, and was denied the ability to attend a Romanian
‘Orthodox Church located on State Road 7, in Pembroke Pines, to which Ms. Adams.
replied that you are only allowed to travel within five miles of the facility for religious
services (Exhibit C, p 1 o this response). In fact, the Movant made, 2 other documented
request on 8/4/2010 and on 10/6/2010, all of which were denied by Ms. Adams (Exhibit
C, pp 2-3, to this response). All partes including the defendants are aware ofthe special
‘exception fo the (5) mile rule which states that, “an exception tothe rule will only be
made when your stated denomination of worship cannot be located within five miles of
the program”. (Exhibit tothe Plaimiff response for summary judgment). Yet again
because Defendants were convinced that they had covered up ther violation of the
Plaintiff's first Amendment right by denying him a BP-9 form, they felt convinced that
making a statement so far from the truth such as, “he (the movant) fails to provide any
proper evidence demonstrating that he asked to attend religious services outside a five
‘mile radius and that his request was denied”, but they failed to remember that their own
internal system contained the evidence that Movant would use to validate his claim for
violation of his first amendment right to freedom of religion, and accordingly, the
Movant should be awarded summary judgment,
b. Fourth Amendment-
‘The Defendants attempt to make Ihe case thats a condition ofthe Plaintis
parole hat he consented to “searches of his person and vehicle". However, the Pl
made it clear to individuals at Dismas House that he was simply operating a family
vehicle, to fulfil his required reporting requirements. Although the individuals inthe
halfway house had, right to search his person upon entering the building, the Supreme
viet
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 9 of 35
‘Court has found that, his Family members have a protected interest against their property
being subject to searched and seizure. "When the prosecution socks to justify a
warrantless search by proof of voluntary consent, itis not limited to proof that consent
was given by the defendant, but may show thatthe permission to search was obtained.
{rom a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship
to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.’ United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S.
164, 171 (1974). In the Movant's previous response to the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment the Movant acknowledged that, while a probationer right of privacy
may be justifiably diminished during the period of probation (see Inman v. State, 124 Ga.
App. 190 (2) (183 SE24 413) (1971), "probationary status does not convert a
probationers family, relatives and friends into ‘second class citizens... . These people
are not stripped of their right of privacy because they may be living with a probationer or
{he may be living with them.” State v. Fogarty, supra at 151. The Supreme Court of
Montana, the only court in the country to address the ramifications of the warrantless
search condition of probation on third partes living with a probationer, concluded that a
‘search warrant based on probable cause must be obtained before a probationer’ residence
‘or property may be searched "so thatthe legal interests of innocent third persons can be
adequately protected..." Given this fact, the Movant should be awarded summary
judgment.
e. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
‘The Defendants make the claim that the Plaintiff received proper notice of is
violation, and was provided a hearing upon his return to Federal Detention Center
Miami, However, the Movant wants to make it clear that he never had a hearing with
anyone, neither at Dismas Charities, nor with any judicial body at the Bureau of Prisons
‘The incarceration was done without the knowledge of USPO and CCM Director, Carlos
Rodríguez, ashe did not sign the papers for the incarceration, thus making it clear that the
Defendants engaged in a campaign of erasing and fabricating documents in order to cover
up any suspicion of the events. The Movant in addition to sanctions levied upon him by
the halfway house, he was forced to service an additonal 81 days in federal incarceration.
Exhibit D to this motion contains the internal (ppl-2, exhibit D) contain the documents
‘which indicate that both Dismas Charities punished with 3 weeks of extra duty, no
Visitors for 3 weeks, and no weekend passes, yet the Defendants have the nerve to claim
that they had no part in punishing the Movant, and more importantly the alleged
‘document which the Plaintifis convinced is a fabrication by the defendants to cover up
legal acts, (pp 3-4, Exhibit D to this response) was a document that Plaintiff had
ot even seen or been aware existed until long after he was released and began the
process of discovery for this lawsuit. Most likely because the document did not exist
until after he was released from the Federal facility, which call into question the
Defendants’ claim that Plaintiff was afforded proper due process, and for these reasons,
the Movant should be awarded summary judgment
4. Bighth Amendment
‘The Defendants explicitly state in their response brief that, “the Plaintif fails to
set forth any cruel or unusual punishment” and they go on to joke tongue in cheek that,
9
‘Court has found that, his Family members have a protected interest against their property
being subject to searched and seizure. "When the prosecution socks to justify a
warrantless search by proof of voluntary consent, itis not limited to proof that consent
was given by the defendant, but may show thatthe permission to search was obtained.
{rom a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship
to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.’ United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S.
164, 171 (1974). In the Movant's previous response to the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment the Movant acknowledged that, while a probationer right of privacy
may be justifiably diminished during the period of probation (see Inman v. State, 124 Ga.
App. 190 (2) (183 SE24 413) (1971), "probationary status does not convert a
probationers family, relatives and friends into ‘second class citizens... . These people
are not stripped of their right of privacy because they may be living with a probationer or
{he may be living with them.” State v. Fogarty, supra at 151. The Supreme Court of
Montana, the only court in the country to address the ramifications of the warrantless
search condition of probation on third partes living with a probationer, concluded that a
‘search warrant based on probable cause must be obtained before a probationer’ residence
‘or property may be searched "so thatthe legal interests of innocent third persons can be
adequately protected..." Given this fact, the Movant should be awarded summary
judgment.
e. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
‘The Defendants make the claim that the Plaintiff received proper notice of is
violation, and was provided a hearing upon his return to Federal Detention Center
Miami, However, the Movant wants to make it clear that he never had a hearing with
anyone, neither at Dismas Charities, nor with any judicial body at the Bureau of Prisons
‘The incarceration was done without the knowledge of USPO and CCM Director, Carlos
Rodríguez, ashe did not sign the papers for the incarceration, thus making it clear that the
Defendants engaged in a campaign of erasing and fabricating documents in order to cover
up any suspicion of the events. The Movant in addition to sanctions levied upon him by
the halfway house, he was forced to service an additonal 81 days in federal incarceration.
Exhibit D to this motion contains the internal (ppl-2, exhibit D) contain the documents
‘which indicate that both Dismas Charities punished with 3 weeks of extra duty, no
Visitors for 3 weeks, and no weekend passes, yet the Defendants have the nerve to claim
that they had no part in punishing the Movant, and more importantly the alleged
‘document which the Plaintifis convinced is a fabrication by the defendants to cover up
legal acts, (pp 3-4, Exhibit D to this response) was a document that Plaintiff had
ot even seen or been aware existed until long after he was released and began the
process of discovery for this lawsuit. Most likely because the document did not exist
until after he was released from the Federal facility, which call into question the
Defendants’ claim that Plaintiff was afforded proper due process, and for these reasons,
the Movant should be awarded summary judgment
4. Bighth Amendment
‘The Defendants explicitly state in their response brief that, “the Plaintif fails to
set forth any cruel or unusual punishment” and they go on to joke tongue in cheek that,
9
Case 1:11-0v-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 10 of 35
“Certainly the Plaintiff who i stil serving a prison sentence cannot complain that being
<eprived a meal from his wie is cruel and unusual as inmates are not permitted home
cooked meals” (Defendants response, p 9). In analyzing claims of Eight Amendment
violations, the courts must look at discrete areas of basic human needs. As we have
recently held," (A)n institution’ obligation under the eighth amendment is at an end fit
furnishes sentenced prisoners with adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical
‘care, and personal safety." Wright v. Rushen, 642 F 2d 1129, 1132-33 Oth Cir
198i)(itation omited) 682 F.2d at 1246-47. When analyzing whether Dismas chartes
Violated ther obligation to respect the Plintf's eight amendment righ, is clear that
the issue is no longer a laughing matter
Looking back at the Movant's discussion ofthe Defendant's Negligence, itis
‘lear that although the defendants attempt to paint themselves as caring and
‘compassionate, going as far to point out that they made the recommendation that the
Movant not participate in any manual activities. However, in on page 3 of Exhibit A to
this response points out an instance in which Ana Gispert that she believes that “dusting
Qualifies" thus giving him a directive to perform manual labor, After days and days of
harassment in Ms. Gispert' absence, the Movant sent an email an email within this
Dismas Charities internal system indicating, ".. pain and discomfort in my liver”
(Exhibit A, p. 4 to this response). Yet again, ina letter dated 10/19/2010, the plaintff
wrote, “this letter is to advise you that today, 10/19/2010, 10:50 AM. Iwas called to the
front desk and told that I should vacuum the room for im, in an attempt to intimidate
me." He goes on 1o state that... as a result of al actions against me, fr the last week,
by Mr. Thomas and his staff, my liver has swollen and I do experience pain” (Exhibit B,
p. 4,10 this response). If forcing an individual that Defendants had previously had made
the case to the Bureau of Prisons to not participate in any manual labor, to dust and
vacuum then isnot a clear case of cruel and unusual punishment, and thus a violation of
the duty to provide adequate medical care and personal safety, there is no justice inthe
world,
‘The Defendants in an attempt to cover their violations of his constitutional right
attempt to paint him as a spoiled man that simply was looking for a home cooked meal
from his wife. Even with them admitting to the fact that they were aware of his medical
‘conditions, the Defendants have refused to address the Plaintiff's claim hat he was not
provided meals that were diabetic friendly, and was given disciplinary action for an
Incident where is wife was delivering food as a result of him not receiving adequate
‘nutritional from the halfway house, something that they are required by law to do. This
‘violates Department of Correction Policies in which, itis mandated hat each institution's
food service program offers nutritionally balanced, appetizing meals, Special Food and
‘Meals, 28 C.FR. $ 547.20 and Program Statement 4700.05, Food Services Manual,
provide that medical dits be available to inmates who require such diets. The Movant's
research has found however that, a prison official violates a prisoner's Fight
Amendment rights, and is deemed negligent if he/she is deliberately indifferent to the
prisoner's serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97, 103-04, 97 S.Ct
285, 50 L-Fd.2d 251 (1976), and accordingly the Movant's motion for summary
judgment should be granted.
10
“Certainly the Plaintiff who i stil serving a prison sentence cannot complain that being
<eprived a meal from his wie is cruel and unusual as inmates are not permitted home
cooked meals” (Defendants response, p 9). In analyzing claims of Eight Amendment
violations, the courts must look at discrete areas of basic human needs. As we have
recently held," (A)n institution’ obligation under the eighth amendment is at an end fit
furnishes sentenced prisoners with adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical
‘care, and personal safety." Wright v. Rushen, 642 F 2d 1129, 1132-33 Oth Cir
198i)(itation omited) 682 F.2d at 1246-47. When analyzing whether Dismas chartes
Violated ther obligation to respect the Plintf's eight amendment righ, is clear that
the issue is no longer a laughing matter
Looking back at the Movant's discussion ofthe Defendant's Negligence, itis
‘lear that although the defendants attempt to paint themselves as caring and
‘compassionate, going as far to point out that they made the recommendation that the
Movant not participate in any manual activities. However, in on page 3 of Exhibit A to
this response points out an instance in which Ana Gispert that she believes that “dusting
Qualifies" thus giving him a directive to perform manual labor, After days and days of
harassment in Ms. Gispert' absence, the Movant sent an email an email within this
Dismas Charities internal system indicating, ".. pain and discomfort in my liver”
(Exhibit A, p. 4 to this response). Yet again, ina letter dated 10/19/2010, the plaintff
wrote, “this letter is to advise you that today, 10/19/2010, 10:50 AM. Iwas called to the
front desk and told that I should vacuum the room for im, in an attempt to intimidate
me." He goes on 1o state that... as a result of al actions against me, fr the last week,
by Mr. Thomas and his staff, my liver has swollen and I do experience pain” (Exhibit B,
p. 4,10 this response). If forcing an individual that Defendants had previously had made
the case to the Bureau of Prisons to not participate in any manual labor, to dust and
vacuum then isnot a clear case of cruel and unusual punishment, and thus a violation of
the duty to provide adequate medical care and personal safety, there is no justice inthe
world,
‘The Defendants in an attempt to cover their violations of his constitutional right
attempt to paint him as a spoiled man that simply was looking for a home cooked meal
from his wife. Even with them admitting to the fact that they were aware of his medical
‘conditions, the Defendants have refused to address the Plaintiff's claim hat he was not
provided meals that were diabetic friendly, and was given disciplinary action for an
Incident where is wife was delivering food as a result of him not receiving adequate
‘nutritional from the halfway house, something that they are required by law to do. This
‘violates Department of Correction Policies in which, itis mandated hat each institution's
food service program offers nutritionally balanced, appetizing meals, Special Food and
‘Meals, 28 C.FR. $ 547.20 and Program Statement 4700.05, Food Services Manual,
provide that medical dits be available to inmates who require such diets. The Movant's
research has found however that, a prison official violates a prisoner's Fight
Amendment rights, and is deemed negligent if he/she is deliberately indifferent to the
prisoner's serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97, 103-04, 97 S.Ct
285, 50 L-Fd.2d 251 (1976), and accordingly the Movant's motion for summary
judgment should be granted.
10
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 11 of 35
3. The Plaintiff has failed to appear for depositions, Defendants’ designated facts
should be taken as established for purposes ofthis Motion for Summary
Judgment, as the Defendants claim and Plaintiff's pleadings should be stricken.
On December 6,2011 the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Action fr
Failure to Appear at Deposition (Document #78). The Movant acknowledges tha the
Defendan’s counsel attompted 1 schedule depositions on te following occasions
October 10,201, November 11,201, and December 5, 2011 (Composite Exhibit | to
Defendants motion). The Movant agin further acknowledges that he understands the
importance of said depositions forthe public interest in enpediious resolution of
ligation, the court need to manage its dockets. Iisa a result ofthis understanding
that the Movant made every attempt to communicate via emails between the Movant and
the Defendant's counsa st his inability to make attend the depositions dueto his
documented and court docketed illnesses. Furthermore, as evident in the back and forth
email corespondences, the Defendant's counsel made no request for current medical,
documents justify the Movants aserion that he was unable o attend, which te
Movant would have been glad to provide, such tat sid documentation would result in
cither rescheduling ofthe Movant's deposition o time that he was physically able to
appear fr his deposition, or such hat other arrangements for deposng the Movant could
be reasonably made ic) va telephone or close circuit television Iti not clear as to
‘why the Defendant's counsel would question the Movants health as he was originally
release from the Defendants Halfway House to home confinement due to several
‘medial conditions, namely being diagnosed with Hepatitis C infection, Cirrhosis ofthe
liver diabetes, ebronicftigus, dépression, thrombocytopenia, ascites, low platelet count,
an possible liver cancer indicated by elevated alphafetoprotcn levels shown in Blood st
and MRI result. Given the Fact hatte only subsequent changes tothe Movant's health
<onáiion hs been ones in which his health has further deteriorate, and thatthe Movant
beieved in good ft thatthe Defendants and their ounsel were aware of these
circumstancss, and furthermore tha Defendant's counsel did not request any updated
‘medial records fm the Movant indicating a change in his current medical condition, he
did no provide further proof of his conditions as it was not requested or warranted under
the circumstances, The Defendants counsel in his motion asserts that because the
Movant was able to appear at mediation, prepared bis Motion for Summary Judgment
Statement of Fcts, Revised Statements of Facts, andthe previous response t the
Defendants Motion fo Summary Judgment, Movant should have ben able to make it to
the scheduled depositions: however this assertion doesnot take into consideration that for
the for he lst seven months, the Ascies the Movant has bee batting has caused his
physicians to give him a 50,0 chance o surviving his scheduled surgery, which has been
rescheduled due to his exacerbated medical condition, and the fact hat he has used what
Tile remaining energy he ad remaining to prepare his motions and court documents.
(See Composite Exhibit 2 to his motion). Since, The Defendants did not respond or
rebut the Pini’ arguments citation of Civil Procedure, and moreover they did not
rase any new arguments to his effet, the Movant rassert the following key factors
with espe to the Fedral ules of Civil Procedure and the remedies that he Defendants
hada her disposals
a
3. The Plaintiff has failed to appear for depositions, Defendants’ designated facts
should be taken as established for purposes ofthis Motion for Summary
Judgment, as the Defendants claim and Plaintiff's pleadings should be stricken.
On December 6,2011 the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Action fr
Failure to Appear at Deposition (Document #78). The Movant acknowledges tha the
Defendan’s counsel attompted 1 schedule depositions on te following occasions
October 10,201, November 11,201, and December 5, 2011 (Composite Exhibit | to
Defendants motion). The Movant agin further acknowledges that he understands the
importance of said depositions forthe public interest in enpediious resolution of
ligation, the court need to manage its dockets. Iisa a result ofthis understanding
that the Movant made every attempt to communicate via emails between the Movant and
the Defendant's counsa st his inability to make attend the depositions dueto his
documented and court docketed illnesses. Furthermore, as evident in the back and forth
email corespondences, the Defendant's counsel made no request for current medical,
documents justify the Movants aserion that he was unable o attend, which te
Movant would have been glad to provide, such tat sid documentation would result in
cither rescheduling ofthe Movant's deposition o time that he was physically able to
appear fr his deposition, or such hat other arrangements for deposng the Movant could
be reasonably made ic) va telephone or close circuit television Iti not clear as to
‘why the Defendant's counsel would question the Movants health as he was originally
release from the Defendants Halfway House to home confinement due to several
‘medial conditions, namely being diagnosed with Hepatitis C infection, Cirrhosis ofthe
liver diabetes, ebronicftigus, dépression, thrombocytopenia, ascites, low platelet count,
an possible liver cancer indicated by elevated alphafetoprotcn levels shown in Blood st
and MRI result. Given the Fact hatte only subsequent changes tothe Movant's health
<onáiion hs been ones in which his health has further deteriorate, and thatthe Movant
beieved in good ft thatthe Defendants and their ounsel were aware of these
circumstancss, and furthermore tha Defendant's counsel did not request any updated
‘medial records fm the Movant indicating a change in his current medical condition, he
did no provide further proof of his conditions as it was not requested or warranted under
the circumstances, The Defendants counsel in his motion asserts that because the
Movant was able to appear at mediation, prepared bis Motion for Summary Judgment
Statement of Fcts, Revised Statements of Facts, andthe previous response t the
Defendants Motion fo Summary Judgment, Movant should have ben able to make it to
the scheduled depositions: however this assertion doesnot take into consideration that for
the for he lst seven months, the Ascies the Movant has bee batting has caused his
physicians to give him a 50,0 chance o surviving his scheduled surgery, which has been
rescheduled due to his exacerbated medical condition, and the fact hat he has used what
Tile remaining energy he ad remaining to prepare his motions and court documents.
(See Composite Exhibit 2 to his motion). Since, The Defendants did not respond or
rebut the Pini’ arguments citation of Civil Procedure, and moreover they did not
rase any new arguments to his effet, the Movant rassert the following key factors
with espe to the Fedral ules of Civil Procedure and the remedies that he Defendants
hada her disposals
a
Case 1:11-0v-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 12 of 35
L. Federal Rule(s) of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) deals with the administration of a deposition
when a party is physically unable to attend a scheduled deposition it provides additional
venues for obtaining the information that achieves both the Defendant's need for
information in regards tothe discovery and the Movant's physical ability to comply:
“By Remote Means. The patties may stipulate—or the court may on motion.
order—that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote means. For the
purpose of this rule and Rules 28(, 37() (2), and 37(b) (1), the deposition takes
place where the deponent answers the questions.”
2. This however would have required a court order, which the Defendant's counsel was
unwilling 0 acquire. Subdivision () (4). In order to facilitate less expensive procedures,
provision is made forthe recording of testimony by other than stenographic means — eg
by mechanical, electronic, or photographic means. Because these methods give rise to
problems of accuracy and trustworthiness, the party taking the deposition is required to
apply for a count order. The order isto specify how the testimony is to be recorded,
preserved, and filed, and it may contain whatever additional safeguards the court deems
necessary. Which leads the Movant to question whether the Defendant truly questioned
the Movants health condition, or whether this was simply a subversive tactic to avoid the
‘court addressing Movant's Petition for Summary Judgment as they were fearful of
strength ofthe Movant’ case
3. Rule 37(d) authorizes the district court to require an attorney "to pay the reasonable
expenses, including attomeys fees, caused by the failure” of ts client to appear at a
deposition, “unless the court finds that the failure was substantally justified or that other
circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Under Rule 37(5)(2), which has the
‘same language as Rule 37(d), the burden of showing substantial justification and special
sumstances ison the party being sanctioned. Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing
Co, 702 F.2d 770, 784 (9th Cir.1983). We thus apply the same burden of proof for Rule
3(d). Since, Movant isthe one here in the ease facing sanctions, the burden of proof for
proving that substantial justification for sanctions falls on the Defendants and their
counsel, and although the Defendant's counsel has proven himself to be an expert in the
area of law, his ability to make material statements of acts towards the Movant's medical
condition and ability to make it to deposition is in question.
4, The courts have also found in Hyde & Drath v. Kenneth R. Baker that:
“We cannot conclude that each ofthe appellant corporations was substantially
justified in faling to attend the depositions. Only K'ung' failure to appear was
substantially justified. Although we have declined to reach the merits ofthe
argument that K'ung was excused from attending the depositions for health
reasons, we do decide that Kung had, atthe least, a good faith dispute concerning
the question of whether he was obligated to appear in light of his serious illness.
He was therefore substantially justified in failing to appear at the deposition. 14.
(ln fact he subsequently died of brain cancer) However, as discussed above, none
‘of the other corporations have a good faith dispute concerning thet failures to
appear. Except for Kung, Hyde de Drath has failed to show that is clients were
substantially justified in violating the courts discovery orders. (Hyde and Drath v.
Kenneth R. Baker, etl (24 F.3d 1162))"
5. Ifthe Defendant's counsel was truly convinced that the Movant was avoiding their
request for discovery via deposition, they could have exercised their rights under Federal
2
L. Federal Rule(s) of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) deals with the administration of a deposition
when a party is physically unable to attend a scheduled deposition it provides additional
venues for obtaining the information that achieves both the Defendant's need for
information in regards tothe discovery and the Movant's physical ability to comply:
“By Remote Means. The patties may stipulate—or the court may on motion.
order—that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote means. For the
purpose of this rule and Rules 28(, 37() (2), and 37(b) (1), the deposition takes
place where the deponent answers the questions.”
2. This however would have required a court order, which the Defendant's counsel was
unwilling 0 acquire. Subdivision () (4). In order to facilitate less expensive procedures,
provision is made forthe recording of testimony by other than stenographic means — eg
by mechanical, electronic, or photographic means. Because these methods give rise to
problems of accuracy and trustworthiness, the party taking the deposition is required to
apply for a count order. The order isto specify how the testimony is to be recorded,
preserved, and filed, and it may contain whatever additional safeguards the court deems
necessary. Which leads the Movant to question whether the Defendant truly questioned
the Movants health condition, or whether this was simply a subversive tactic to avoid the
‘court addressing Movant's Petition for Summary Judgment as they were fearful of
strength ofthe Movant’ case
3. Rule 37(d) authorizes the district court to require an attorney "to pay the reasonable
expenses, including attomeys fees, caused by the failure” of ts client to appear at a
deposition, “unless the court finds that the failure was substantally justified or that other
circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Under Rule 37(5)(2), which has the
‘same language as Rule 37(d), the burden of showing substantial justification and special
sumstances ison the party being sanctioned. Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing
Co, 702 F.2d 770, 784 (9th Cir.1983). We thus apply the same burden of proof for Rule
3(d). Since, Movant isthe one here in the ease facing sanctions, the burden of proof for
proving that substantial justification for sanctions falls on the Defendants and their
counsel, and although the Defendant's counsel has proven himself to be an expert in the
area of law, his ability to make material statements of acts towards the Movant's medical
condition and ability to make it to deposition is in question.
4, The courts have also found in Hyde & Drath v. Kenneth R. Baker that:
“We cannot conclude that each ofthe appellant corporations was substantially
justified in faling to attend the depositions. Only K'ung' failure to appear was
substantially justified. Although we have declined to reach the merits ofthe
argument that K'ung was excused from attending the depositions for health
reasons, we do decide that Kung had, atthe least, a good faith dispute concerning
the question of whether he was obligated to appear in light of his serious illness.
He was therefore substantially justified in failing to appear at the deposition. 14.
(ln fact he subsequently died of brain cancer) However, as discussed above, none
‘of the other corporations have a good faith dispute concerning thet failures to
appear. Except for Kung, Hyde de Drath has failed to show that is clients were
substantially justified in violating the courts discovery orders. (Hyde and Drath v.
Kenneth R. Baker, etl (24 F.3d 1162))"
5. Ifthe Defendant's counsel was truly convinced that the Movant was avoiding their
request for discovery via deposition, they could have exercised their rights under Federal
2
Case 1:11-0v-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 13 of 35
Rule of Civil Procedure 45(0Xe)(4) and) and filed a Subpoena for Deposition, in which
the court would issue a Command to Attend a Deposition. This would be done in an
foro (ek) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or anomey
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must tke reasonable steps o avoid
imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject o the subpoena. The isuing cout
must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sancion—which may include lost
earings and reasonable attomeÿs fees on a paty or ttomey who fil to comply. In
following the rules of civil procedure, the court would issue and order for contempt in
‘hich the issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, is
without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena
6. Given the fact that Defendants counsel knows that they would not have met the burden
of proof requiring the court to issue a subpoena for the Movant to appear in ight ofthe
critical nature of his health condition, they chose instead to circumvent this process, and
use other avenues of achieving this means 0 their ends, thus robbing the court oF its
power to compel compliance with the rule of iv procedure
7. À district cour has wide disreton to establish the time and place of depositions. In re
Standard Metals Corp. 817 F.2d 625, 628 (10th Cir.1987) cet. dismissed, 488 U.S. 881,
109 SC. 201, 102 LEG 171 (1988). Here the special master explained that it was
necessary forthe Hong Kong depositions to take place in San Francisco so thatthe court
could overse the proceedings since appellants had distegarded the previous deposition
Order, He also noted that appellants had done business and filed suit inthe Northern
District of California and should therefore expect Lo have to appear there. These facts are
sufficient to establish that there was no abuse of discretion in ordering the depositions 40
‘occur in San Francisco,
8, Before a district court dismisses a complaint, it must weigh the five factors prescribed in
Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 682, 656 Oth Ci 1990). Then, the district court must
find that a party's behavior in ignoring the depositions demonstrated willulness, bad
fai or fall. Feltad v. American Honda Motor Co, 762 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9h
Cir.1985).
9. Finally, Ihe fil factor requires the district cou to consider altemate, less severe,
sanctions before ordering dismissal. To determine whether the district court flied this
‘obligation, the reviewing court examines whether the cour (1) explicitly discussed the
feasibility of les drastic sanctions and explained why alternative sanctions would be
inappropriate, (2) implemented alternative sanctions before ordering dismissal, and (3)
amed the party of the possibilty of dismissal before actually ordering it. Adriana, 913
F.2dat 1412-13. But, "explicit discussion of altematives is unnecessary ifthe district
our actually tres altematives before employing the ultimate sanction of dismissal.”
Malone, 833 F.2d at 132.
‘Accordingly the Movant should be awarded summary judgment.
Conclusion
WHEREFORE, taking into consideration the aforementioned premises, and the
Defendants inability to provide honest, persuasive arguments to support their claims, the
“Movant respectfully requests the Court to awarded summary judgment in his favor.
w
Rule of Civil Procedure 45(0Xe)(4) and) and filed a Subpoena for Deposition, in which
the court would issue a Command to Attend a Deposition. This would be done in an
foro (ek) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or anomey
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must tke reasonable steps o avoid
imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject o the subpoena. The isuing cout
must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sancion—which may include lost
earings and reasonable attomeÿs fees on a paty or ttomey who fil to comply. In
following the rules of civil procedure, the court would issue and order for contempt in
‘hich the issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, is
without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena
6. Given the fact that Defendants counsel knows that they would not have met the burden
of proof requiring the court to issue a subpoena for the Movant to appear in ight ofthe
critical nature of his health condition, they chose instead to circumvent this process, and
use other avenues of achieving this means 0 their ends, thus robbing the court oF its
power to compel compliance with the rule of iv procedure
7. À district cour has wide disreton to establish the time and place of depositions. In re
Standard Metals Corp. 817 F.2d 625, 628 (10th Cir.1987) cet. dismissed, 488 U.S. 881,
109 SC. 201, 102 LEG 171 (1988). Here the special master explained that it was
necessary forthe Hong Kong depositions to take place in San Francisco so thatthe court
could overse the proceedings since appellants had distegarded the previous deposition
Order, He also noted that appellants had done business and filed suit inthe Northern
District of California and should therefore expect Lo have to appear there. These facts are
sufficient to establish that there was no abuse of discretion in ordering the depositions 40
‘occur in San Francisco,
8, Before a district court dismisses a complaint, it must weigh the five factors prescribed in
Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 682, 656 Oth Ci 1990). Then, the district court must
find that a party's behavior in ignoring the depositions demonstrated willulness, bad
fai or fall. Feltad v. American Honda Motor Co, 762 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9h
Cir.1985).
9. Finally, Ihe fil factor requires the district cou to consider altemate, less severe,
sanctions before ordering dismissal. To determine whether the district court flied this
‘obligation, the reviewing court examines whether the cour (1) explicitly discussed the
feasibility of les drastic sanctions and explained why alternative sanctions would be
inappropriate, (2) implemented alternative sanctions before ordering dismissal, and (3)
amed the party of the possibilty of dismissal before actually ordering it. Adriana, 913
F.2dat 1412-13. But, "explicit discussion of altematives is unnecessary ifthe district
our actually tres altematives before employing the ultimate sanction of dismissal.”
Malone, 833 F.2d at 132.
‘Accordingly the Movant should be awarded summary judgment.
Conclusion
WHEREFORE, taking into consideration the aforementioned premises, and the
Defendants inability to provide honest, persuasive arguments to support their claims, the
“Movant respectfully requests the Court to awarded summary judgment in his favor.
w
Case 1:11-0v-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 14 of 35
Date: January 16, 2012
Respectfully Submitted,
raiau pujiluléanu
‘TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU, PRO SE LITIGANT
1
Date: January 16, 2012
Respectfully Submitted,
raiau pujiluléanu
‘TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU, PRO SE LITIGANT
1
Case 1:11-0v-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 15 of 35
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
hereby certify that on or about JANUARY 16", 2012 a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon the following via the United States Postal
Service, First Class Mail:
Dismas Charities, Inc,
141 NW. 1St Avenue
Dania, FL 33004-2835
Ana Gispert
Dismas Charities Inc
141 NW. 1 St. Avenue
Dania, FL 3004-2835
Derek Thomas
Dismas Charities Inc.
141 NW. 1 St. Avenue
Dania, FL 33004-2835
Lashanda Adams
Dismas Charites Inc.
141 N.W.1St.Avenue
Dania FL 33004-2835
David $. Chaiet Esquire
Attorney for Defendants
4000 Hollywood Boulevard
Suite 265-South
Hollywood, Fl. 33021
EXECUTED ON THIS 16% DAY OF JANUARY, 2012
Tian Susdurenu
ES
5601 W. BROWARD BLVD,
PLANTATION, FL 33317
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
hereby certify that on or about JANUARY 16", 2012 a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon the following via the United States Postal
Service, First Class Mail:
Dismas Charities, Inc,
141 NW. 1St Avenue
Dania, FL 33004-2835
Ana Gispert
Dismas Charities Inc
141 NW. 1 St. Avenue
Dania, FL 3004-2835
Derek Thomas
Dismas Charities Inc.
141 NW. 1 St. Avenue
Dania, FL 33004-2835
Lashanda Adams
Dismas Charites Inc.
141 N.W.1St.Avenue
Dania FL 33004-2835
David $. Chaiet Esquire
Attorney for Defendants
4000 Hollywood Boulevard
Suite 265-South
Hollywood, Fl. 33021
EXECUTED ON THIS 16% DAY OF JANUARY, 2012
Tian Susdurenu
ES
5601 W. BROWARD BLVD,
PLANTATION, FL 33317
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 16 of 35
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
‘Dissent MhacvieotBesAAlart Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Pagkasr bess
Dismas CHARITIES
Home Search Tasks Reports _ Administration
"Traian Bujsuveanu
EI pcos
Ni Cama er
geome ie ee
Comer [Res jouranioost an
ee E ci
Dana hero. “This action is to inform you that no Incident Report or Confiscation Slip
SOE es A on
EI en orem eames ree eee
Sel E dto ERC I
A A ni
Mar are RIT
Open MOVEMENTS =
oad
0
tip /dania:serve/FreshStarVResidentSchedules!ActionRequests/ActionRequestDetails asp... 9/7/2011
Dismas CHARITIES
Home Search Tasks Reports _ Administration
"Traian Bujsuveanu
EI pcos
Ni Cama er
geome ie ee
Comer [Res jouranioost an
ee E ci
Dana hero. “This action is to inform you that no Incident Report or Confiscation Slip
SOE es A on
EI en orem eames ree eee
Sel E dto ERC I
A A ni
Mar are RIT
Open MOVEMENTS =
oad
0
tip /dania:serve/FreshStarVResidentSchedules!ActionRequests/ActionRequestDetails asp... 9/7/2011
pBABE Cid ZQARAGAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 PAIE U ES
DisMAS CHARITIES
Roporte_ Administration
Home Search Tasks
‘cron Request DETALS
Sat lope, ana
Ghent Buuveanu, Traian
Number 3001
un. Requested {ora2010 1229 PM
Dune Statis Completed
ve uo mie 810 advise you that because ie voice and Taian BuPuvean
Enric Ta i Bae yo zt by Dinas Charesming make De Search
Eur oran Soros! as NO ben liga Als lease be aide hat do not sake DN
o SUE any Dr and nate does any mener of Fay Me
[reas DURE ay Dale 3 Ciera ae. someone in e SN coud
the ef istements nen how can us! such persons to search my
Movement Requests exar or the vehice without me being present,or without my knoledge 7
Orrenaen Best Regards Train Sujuveano
Orex move | previous Please read your Handbook regarding searches, Ana ispert
Parente Responses PR Can Else ES on
Proce Response
Reuse CHECKS
Srarus Heron
Sunurence
Sum
EE
®
Ibor aeidentSchedrlos/ActionReauests/ActionRequestDetails.asp..._ 9/7/2011
DisMAS CHARITIES
Roporte_ Administration
Home Search Tasks
‘cron Request DETALS
Sat lope, ana
Ghent Buuveanu, Traian
Number 3001
un. Requested {ora2010 1229 PM
Dune Statis Completed
ve uo mie 810 advise you that because ie voice and Taian BuPuvean
Enric Ta i Bae yo zt by Dinas Charesming make De Search
Eur oran Soros! as NO ben liga Als lease be aide hat do not sake DN
o SUE any Dr and nate does any mener of Fay Me
[reas DURE ay Dale 3 Ciera ae. someone in e SN coud
the ef istements nen how can us! such persons to search my
Movement Requests exar or the vehice without me being present,or without my knoledge 7
Orrenaen Best Regards Train Sujuveano
Orex move | previous Please read your Handbook regarding searches, Ana ispert
Parente Responses PR Can Else ES on
Proce Response
Reuse CHECKS
Srarus Heron
Sunurence
Sum
EE
®
Ibor aeidentSchedrlos/ActionReauests/ActionRequestDetails.asp..._ 9/7/2011
Das ChaeKiGO1eABSEn Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 PagPal® OBS
Dismas CHARITIES
Home Search Tasks Reports Administration
“honor REQUEST] Actiox Reavesı Devas
Case Notes Staff gispert ana
Cuervo Client Bujdeveanu, Tan
Cuan Srarro | Number 3967
Cowacrs Requested
come Reavested 10/182010 1242 PM
Discnance Staus Completed
Drews ro “This isa request to Exponge the 300 Shot given to mo on Friday
Euriovwent 10/15/2010.4:30 pm. The reason forthe requests that more than 24
Enriovwent Scene) ‘ours has passed since he naiden eure and no reason fr extension
Fu Mosa Was given fo me. Aso pase nto tat among oer sancton her was
Howe Com Reason L0H Work Duy placed n ths Shoot Please nate the fact at have
been diagnosed wi te folowing medical conditions: Viral Hepatts C -
Movement Reauesrs Liver Cimoss Liver Cancer Chrone Fatigue -Diabetes -rombocylopenia
Orrenses Low Platelets Count-Low Phenphera Blood Crculabon These medical
Oren Movements {nations do not permit me to accept any kind ol work. Best Rogards
Paire ‘Traian busuveant
(rte) Previous Denied. This is nat an Incident Report ut an in house discpinay repos
Recumeo Gueexs | Responses Also, your fie ram the msituton states you ae cleared to work win yc
‘medial conditions. believe dusting quals / Ana gepert
Srarus HisTonY ‘fem ra ION RES
Sunsirence Response
‘Summary
nutp:/dania-server/FreshStart/ResidentSchedules/ActionRequests/ActionRequestDetails.asp... 9/7/2011
Dismas CHARITIES
Home Search Tasks Reports Administration
“honor REQUEST] Actiox Reavesı Devas
Case Notes Staff gispert ana
Cuervo Client Bujdeveanu, Tan
Cuan Srarro | Number 3967
Cowacrs Requested
come Reavested 10/182010 1242 PM
Discnance Staus Completed
Drews ro “This isa request to Exponge the 300 Shot given to mo on Friday
Euriovwent 10/15/2010.4:30 pm. The reason forthe requests that more than 24
Enriovwent Scene) ‘ours has passed since he naiden eure and no reason fr extension
Fu Mosa Was given fo me. Aso pase nto tat among oer sancton her was
Howe Com Reason L0H Work Duy placed n ths Shoot Please nate the fact at have
been diagnosed wi te folowing medical conditions: Viral Hepatts C -
Movement Reauesrs Liver Cimoss Liver Cancer Chrone Fatigue -Diabetes -rombocylopenia
Orrenses Low Platelets Count-Low Phenphera Blood Crculabon These medical
Oren Movements {nations do not permit me to accept any kind ol work. Best Rogards
Paire ‘Traian busuveant
(rte) Previous Denied. This is nat an Incident Report ut an in house discpinay repos
Recumeo Gueexs | Responses Also, your fie ram the msituton states you ae cleared to work win yc
‘medial conditions. believe dusting quals / Ana gepert
Srarus HisTonY ‘fem ra ION RES
Sunsirence Response
‘Summary
nutp:/dania-server/FreshStart/ResidentSchedules/ActionRequests/ActionRequestDetails.asp... 9/7/2011
Based UNA MADIRAISGN Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Pagilsgo boss
Dismas CHARITIES
03 Home Search Tasks Reports Administration
Tain Baje
OS A
Case NOTES sur gispert, ana
Coro Cien Buga. Tian
Cue Stavtwro | Number 9900
Sacro Requested
Some Requests (anno 1224 PM
Fes Saus Completed
One ro “This letterr is to advise you” that | experience pain and disconfort in my
Baron {vor ns deo to bing upset and rane fore st ot y Ir
Enorme Scouts ‘hoa ond ns Saf mbes, lease be pd nd aes Thomas
a contain am upssing me de tomy media condon an he
Fro Mo Sormage tate cape te my tag wer lanky bie cont
soap has escalated from nothing to a Personal Level and it is attempted to be
(Movement Requests: resolved in a vindictive way by Mr. Thomas. Best Regards Traian
pe Eme
Orea Moenia | preus {do ope tat you e tor il peak Thomas regarding ts
Pas Responses stanton ances os know ave been o own ance VOA) Ana
em Le 10182010 51:00 PM
Requineo CHecKs PON
Status HsroRe Response
Supsirence
Sumas
®
hito://dania-server/FreshStart/ResidentSchedules/ActionRequests/ActionRequestDetails.asp... 9/7/2011
Dismas CHARITIES
03 Home Search Tasks Reports Administration
Tain Baje
OS A
Case NOTES sur gispert, ana
Coro Cien Buga. Tian
Cue Stavtwro | Number 9900
Sacro Requested
Some Requests (anno 1224 PM
Fes Saus Completed
One ro “This letterr is to advise you” that | experience pain and disconfort in my
Baron {vor ns deo to bing upset and rane fore st ot y Ir
Enorme Scouts ‘hoa ond ns Saf mbes, lease be pd nd aes Thomas
a contain am upssing me de tomy media condon an he
Fro Mo Sormage tate cape te my tag wer lanky bie cont
soap has escalated from nothing to a Personal Level and it is attempted to be
(Movement Requests: resolved in a vindictive way by Mr. Thomas. Best Regards Traian
pe Eme
Orea Moenia | preus {do ope tat you e tor il peak Thomas regarding ts
Pas Responses stanton ances os know ave been o own ance VOA) Ana
em Le 10182010 51:00 PM
Requineo CHecKs PON
Status HsroRe Response
Supsirence
Sumas
®
hito://dania-server/FreshStart/ResidentSchedules/ActionRequests/ActionRequestDetails.asp... 9/7/2011
Case 1:11-0v-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 21 of 35
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
DES CAMEHANNES Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docketonneror2 PEL hS
Dismas CHARITIES
Home Search Tasks Reports Administration
Acmon REQUEST
Case Nores
ker ro
ua Srar ro
Cowracra
Cem Tasıe,
Oscnce
Dre Mro
Euro
Eunormenr Seneours|
Fixeo Movemenrs
Howe Cour.
Moveenr Requests
Orrases
Open Moveneurs.
Parra
Proonaus
Rouco Cnecxs
Sraros HisroRY
Sunssrenen
‘Sumer?
Acnou Request Deraus
Star ‘Adams, Lashonda
Glen Buéuveanu Taian
Number 9872
Bowes Canao%0 57 a
Sis Compe
an Pate bo Hind and roe a 8P-9Fom so can oe pope
ER Er raies Thank ou Trion Sven
Previous Mr Bujcuveanu, unfortunatoty was unable to obtain a BP-9 From. |
Responses check wi the Drelr to ses {wo have auc form
Response
(See) (Reset) [Caen] Chesson)
0
covune/PreshSter/ResidentSchedules/ActionReauests/ActionRequestDetails.asp... 9/7/2011
Dismas CHARITIES
Home Search Tasks Reports Administration
Acmon REQUEST
Case Nores
ker ro
ua Srar ro
Cowracra
Cem Tasıe,
Oscnce
Dre Mro
Euro
Eunormenr Seneours|
Fixeo Movemenrs
Howe Cour.
Moveenr Requests
Orrases
Open Moveneurs.
Parra
Proonaus
Rouco Cnecxs
Sraros HisroRY
Sunssrenen
‘Sumer?
Acnou Request Deraus
Star ‘Adams, Lashonda
Glen Buéuveanu Taian
Number 9872
Bowes Canao%0 57 a
Sis Compe
an Pate bo Hind and roe a 8P-9Fom so can oe pope
ER Er raies Thank ou Trion Sven
Previous Mr Bujcuveanu, unfortunatoty was unable to obtain a BP-9 From. |
Responses check wi the Drelr to ses {wo have auc form
Response
(See) (Reset) [Caen] Chesson)
0
covune/PreshSter/ResidentSchedules/ActionReauests/ActionRequestDetails.asp... 9/7/2011
Diese Chitiéss 201$ Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 25 Ot 35
DismaAs CHARITIES
383 Home Search Tasks Reports Administration
RETENUS |
one Reavesrs | ACTON Rrquesr Devas
Case Notes Staff gispert, ana
user Iwo Gien Bujéuvesnu, Traian
Cue Srayro [Number 23889
Contacrs Requested yy
Cua Tass Date 10182010 10:53 AM
Discuance Status Completed
‘Davina ro “Tis ltr so inform you that 2,0. Regulations states that an Incident
Eumuonuent Report and a Confiscation Sip should be provided tothe prisoner win 24
Enpcovwent Scheoue| Fouts of fe cient Aso an nveetgaton should be camted outin the frst
xao Moves 2% hours of he nedentby a body of people that have no knoledge o
ca: incident and are neutral Upon te findings of is Neutral Commission,
Shot could be issued within Ast 24 hour of te incident prisoner was.
Move Reauesrs found to be guly. Today, when | have asked Mr. Thomas and Ns. Adams.
Orrenses for à copy of th inciden report and a copy ofthe confiscation sip. was,
Open Movenenrs {old hat they would take me back to prison when “They” do thatand that
Reason this is he Cistmas Charles ne. and NOT the Bureau of Prisons. Please
Proc Fe ac ne ihr dy mn nave asked Me Mor doctor shoud
Fla coy va mal mate ar po responded: Ts The
Raaumen Cueca. (8.0 P..and doctor does not have any say here. In light of all of the above.t
Srans Heron SO astra vous Re ll tr es | an confined a dont
Sunsermer Arena un Corina! Figs ar lated and why at
Land nk Rh igs am beng entoned wit veu 0
Prison’ this issue cannot be resolved inhouse In an amicable way then |
‘nly request a BP-© For eo | could fle my grievances outside of this
“Tuition Best Regards Traian Bujguveanu
Previous Please read your handbook regarding contraband. Best regards Ana
Responses gispert
ur Maniaconver/PrehStne/ResidentSchedules/ActionReauests/ActionRequestDetails. asp... 9/7/2011
DismaAs CHARITIES
383 Home Search Tasks Reports Administration
RETENUS |
one Reavesrs | ACTON Rrquesr Devas
Case Notes Staff gispert, ana
user Iwo Gien Bujéuvesnu, Traian
Cue Srayro [Number 23889
Contacrs Requested yy
Cua Tass Date 10182010 10:53 AM
Discuance Status Completed
‘Davina ro “Tis ltr so inform you that 2,0. Regulations states that an Incident
Eumuonuent Report and a Confiscation Sip should be provided tothe prisoner win 24
Enpcovwent Scheoue| Fouts of fe cient Aso an nveetgaton should be camted outin the frst
xao Moves 2% hours of he nedentby a body of people that have no knoledge o
ca: incident and are neutral Upon te findings of is Neutral Commission,
Shot could be issued within Ast 24 hour of te incident prisoner was.
Move Reauesrs found to be guly. Today, when | have asked Mr. Thomas and Ns. Adams.
Orrenses for à copy of th inciden report and a copy ofthe confiscation sip. was,
Open Movenenrs {old hat they would take me back to prison when “They” do thatand that
Reason this is he Cistmas Charles ne. and NOT the Bureau of Prisons. Please
Proc Fe ac ne ihr dy mn nave asked Me Mor doctor shoud
Fla coy va mal mate ar po responded: Ts The
Raaumen Cueca. (8.0 P..and doctor does not have any say here. In light of all of the above.t
Srans Heron SO astra vous Re ll tr es | an confined a dont
Sunsermer Arena un Corina! Figs ar lated and why at
Land nk Rh igs am beng entoned wit veu 0
Prison’ this issue cannot be resolved inhouse In an amicable way then |
‘nly request a BP-© For eo | could fle my grievances outside of this
“Tuition Best Regards Traian Bujguveanu
Previous Please read your handbook regarding contraband. Best regards Ana
Responses gispert
ur Maniaconver/PrehStne/ResidentSchedules/ActionReauests/ActionRequestDetails. asp... 9/7/2011
DER CdriaePOERAHBAR Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 RES
Dismas CHARITIES
Home Search Tasks Reporte _ Administration
Acnon Reauesr Deraus
‘Acnow Reouesrs
Cast Nores Su gispert ana
Cue Inro Cent Bujduveanı, Traian
GuesrSrarro | Number 3905
Cowraers Requested ar
princi Requested-“o11072010 439 PM
Dscrance Status Completed
De br “This a request for copy of ALL Shots issued to me orto my name by
Eunorunt lamas Charis ine Sta members. Subsequent Lam that
Senor stl coun A sear
Face Mavens ‘Atay nutes | Cold m grevanco | Dee ese are my
Coma dena ghana toy ola De nt denle, Best Regards Taian
Now Cow. cone
Moree IO | pay 2
Ormes Re PRÉ means
DS bo
Lens
Ron cuece
Sava aro
A eee
corver/PreshStartResidentSchedules/ActionReauests/ActionRequestDetsils. asp... 9/7/2011
Dismas CHARITIES
Home Search Tasks Reporte _ Administration
Acnon Reauesr Deraus
‘Acnow Reouesrs
Cast Nores Su gispert ana
Cue Inro Cent Bujduveanı, Traian
GuesrSrarro | Number 3905
Cowraers Requested ar
princi Requested-“o11072010 439 PM
Dscrance Status Completed
De br “This a request for copy of ALL Shots issued to me orto my name by
Eunorunt lamas Charis ine Sta members. Subsequent Lam that
Senor stl coun A sear
Face Mavens ‘Atay nutes | Cold m grevanco | Dee ese are my
Coma dena ghana toy ola De nt denle, Best Regards Taian
Now Cow. cone
Moree IO | pay 2
Ormes Re PRÉ means
DS bo
Lens
Ron cuece
Sava aro
A eee
corver/PreshStartResidentSchedules/ActionReauests/ActionRequestDetsils. asp... 9/7/2011
DiGASPCRIANRL2PIAGSRAE Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket oınerzorz PAE isos
Dismas CHARITIES
Home Search Tasks Reports _ Administration
‘Acnon Reaussr DEraLs
Staff gispert ana
Cuerno Client Bojduveano, Traian
GuswySrav ro [Number 3898
Cowraers Requested Sn
tic Requested Torer2010 11:25 AM
Discuanos. Status Completed
‘Drea ero “This eter is o advise you that today 10/18/2010, 1:50 am. was calls to
Espumas, the ont desk and oK at | should vacuum the room fo inn an
Exponent Scusoue| ‘tempt to inmate me. Me, Gsper please be aware that axa result of
eo Movies l'avons aginst me forthe lst weak by Mr, Thomas and his say
Has Reason — Iver has swallow and! do experience pain, This has been a great unset 10
A ma and your staff members do not want leave mein peace.and Keep on
Movenenr Reaves Traing me tour any reason, Please be kind and provide me wi a
Orrenses 1.9 Form so an fle my gievancies outside ol he sphere of his
Ore Movamenrs “Re ox Ruperts ion duren
Pavers Previous YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN A DIRECTIVE TO VACUMN THE ROOM AS A
Progra Responses SANCTION. EXTRA DUTY, AND YOU REFUSED /aNA GISPERT
sine at en ns ION 82025 PM
Status Heron | Fewo
Sunsirence
Summary
(See) (Reset) (eave) (ren)
nant enr rhin rsidemtSehadnine/actionRenuents/ActionReauestDetails.asn… 9/7/2011
Dismas CHARITIES
Home Search Tasks Reports _ Administration
‘Acnon Reaussr DEraLs
Staff gispert ana
Cuerno Client Bojduveano, Traian
GuswySrav ro [Number 3898
Cowraers Requested Sn
tic Requested Torer2010 11:25 AM
Discuanos. Status Completed
‘Drea ero “This eter is o advise you that today 10/18/2010, 1:50 am. was calls to
Espumas, the ont desk and oK at | should vacuum the room fo inn an
Exponent Scusoue| ‘tempt to inmate me. Me, Gsper please be aware that axa result of
eo Movies l'avons aginst me forthe lst weak by Mr, Thomas and his say
Has Reason — Iver has swallow and! do experience pain, This has been a great unset 10
A ma and your staff members do not want leave mein peace.and Keep on
Movenenr Reaves Traing me tour any reason, Please be kind and provide me wi a
Orrenses 1.9 Form so an fle my gievancies outside ol he sphere of his
Ore Movamenrs “Re ox Ruperts ion duren
Pavers Previous YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN A DIRECTIVE TO VACUMN THE ROOM AS A
Progra Responses SANCTION. EXTRA DUTY, AND YOU REFUSED /aNA GISPERT
sine at en ns ION 82025 PM
Status Heron | Fewo
Sunsirence
Summary
(See) (Reset) (eave) (ren)
nant enr rhin rsidemtSehadnine/actionRenuents/ActionReauestDetails.asn… 9/7/2011
Dias CAideSEGABAR Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 PabRBRd Bt ts
OB
El
Dismas CHARITIES
Home Search Tasks Reports Administration
‘alan Bulduveanu
Acnon Requests,
Case Nores
Cuero
Cuenr Stay aro
Cowracrs
Cue Tas,
Disowance
Drie ro
Emo
Eunoruer Scneoue]
Fo Moveneurs,
Howe Cove.
Movenenr Recuests
Orrenses,
Open Movements
Parents
Proonaus
Reoukeo CHECKS
Srarus Histone
‘Suessrence
Sor
‘Acnon Reavest Devas
Staff gispert ana
Chert Bujduveanu, Traian
Number 3907
Requested
Requosted/“ay1972010 6:47 PM,
Status” Completed
Please be kind and advise at your oun convenience, as per which rules
this nstutonfolows: The B.0,P. Rules or Dismas Charis, Inc. Rules
Reason Il appears to me that rules applied here ae a matter of convenience and
Not of someting of legal nature. Please help me to understand this issue.
Best Regards Taian Bujduveanu
Previous transforred
Responses "popes ato TOO «asco rat
Response
tap: /damia-server/Fre
5
hStar/ResidentSchedules/ActionRequests/ActionRequestDetils.asp... 9/7/2011
OB
El
Dismas CHARITIES
Home Search Tasks Reports Administration
‘alan Bulduveanu
Acnon Requests,
Case Nores
Cuero
Cuenr Stay aro
Cowracrs
Cue Tas,
Disowance
Drie ro
Emo
Eunoruer Scneoue]
Fo Moveneurs,
Howe Cove.
Movenenr Recuests
Orrenses,
Open Movements
Parents
Proonaus
Reoukeo CHECKS
Srarus Histone
‘Suessrence
Sor
‘Acnon Reavest Devas
Staff gispert ana
Chert Bujduveanu, Traian
Number 3907
Requested
Requosted/“ay1972010 6:47 PM,
Status” Completed
Please be kind and advise at your oun convenience, as per which rules
this nstutonfolows: The B.0,P. Rules or Dismas Charis, Inc. Rules
Reason Il appears to me that rules applied here ae a matter of convenience and
Not of someting of legal nature. Please help me to understand this issue.
Best Regards Taian Bujduveanu
Previous transforred
Responses "popes ato TOO «asco rat
Response
tap: /damia-server/Fre
5
hStar/ResidentSchedules/ActionRequests/ActionRequestDetils.asp... 9/7/2011
Case 1:11-0v-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 27 of 35
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
Dimas Gtesties26rehSias Document 92. Entered on FLSO Docket ouier2012 PAgESBL Ss
Dismas CHARITIES
Home Search Tasks Reports _ Administration
Traian Bujduveanu
Reno Reouesre
‘Acnon Request Derans
Case Nores Star ‘Adams, Lashonda
Cuenr ro Cheat Bujduveanu, Traian
Guewr Sray thro | Number on u
Cowmnere Requested en
nn pe asco 1224 PM)
Discaanor Status Tonpiaied
Se re ‘would lke to attend Church Sevces every Sunday moming.
Eu.oruent Reason Romanian Orthodox Church located on ST Road 441 and
Eu ormenr Scneoue) Pines
Fixeo Movemenrs — Previous You are on allowed to travel within five mies of the fait for
Howe Cour. Responses religious servicos.
ponce Rovers Seams tensa 297010 42300
Orrenses
Oren Movements
Pocas
Rroumeo Checxo.
raros History
Suesisrence
Suman
Response
Ets
tip /dania:serverFreshStarUResidentSchedules/ActionRoquests/ActionRequesiDetails.asp.... 9/7/2011
Dismas CHARITIES
Home Search Tasks Reports _ Administration
Traian Bujduveanu
Reno Reouesre
‘Acnon Request Derans
Case Nores Star ‘Adams, Lashonda
Cuenr ro Cheat Bujduveanu, Traian
Guewr Sray thro | Number on u
Cowmnere Requested en
nn pe asco 1224 PM)
Discaanor Status Tonpiaied
Se re ‘would lke to attend Church Sevces every Sunday moming.
Eu.oruent Reason Romanian Orthodox Church located on ST Road 441 and
Eu ormenr Scneoue) Pines
Fixeo Movemenrs — Previous You are on allowed to travel within five mies of the fait for
Howe Cour. Responses religious servicos.
ponce Rovers Seams tensa 297010 42300
Orrenses
Oren Movements
Pocas
Rroumeo Checxo.
raros History
Suesisrence
Suman
Response
Ets
tip /dania:serverFreshStarUResidentSchedules/ActionRoquests/ActionRequesiDetails.asp.... 9/7/2011
Case 1:11:07.20120-
se 1:11-01-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 20 o¢35
Dismas Charities - FreshStart we
Cuervo
Guent Star ro Requestod Dato
Corman Requested For Date,
user Tancs Locations
Dscunce
Dna nro
Emo
or Scneowe| Requested Out Time 6:00 AM
Faro Mavemaure | Duration Ant On)
Howe Cour.
A | Wanspratonro Tapas ty Fantyend
Orrenses or
es | atapataton From AA
Parr Asian | would ike to attend Church Services. Distance: 7.3 mi-sbout
rocas Amis A
a Stas ‘Denied
Srarus Haron” ‘Good evening. Can you rey and fine a church wi in five mies.
Suasisrence [en Reson ore aay.
‘Suman
se 1:11-01-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 20 o¢35
Dismas Charities - FreshStart we
Cuervo
Guent Star ro Requestod Dato
Corman Requested For Date,
user Tancs Locations
Dscunce
Dna nro
Emo
or Scneowe| Requested Out Time 6:00 AM
Faro Mavemaure | Duration Ant On)
Howe Cour.
A | Wanspratonro Tapas ty Fantyend
Orrenses or
es | atapataton From AA
Parr Asian | would ike to attend Church Services. Distance: 7.3 mi-sbout
rocas Amis A
a Stas ‘Denied
Srarus Haron” ‘Good evening. Can you rey and fine a church wi in five mies.
Suasisrence [en Reson ore aay.
‘Suman
Case 1:11-0v-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 30 of 35
Dismas Charities - FreshStart Page 1 of 1
TE DISMAS CHARITIES
mar bona
CR
En aan Fan
Requested Date 1016/2010 >
See me)
seer mono
AS
= nn
a ia
pagamos. ropa
Duron Sd Cum
BE Tant Fans
Mecs OF
Maur grs ania
“i request o-Church Atandance” Church is ete t 9.5 Mand shout about
pean ie ehe ma ee ONLY ts Ono See dou Fos and toa
cs tea tony an
sas Dares
Denia Reason You need to fnd a place of worship win § mies of your home.
Ces)
Dismas Charities - FreshStart Page 1 of 1
TE DISMAS CHARITIES
mar bona
CR
En aan Fan
Requested Date 1016/2010 >
See me)
seer mono
AS
= nn
a ia
pagamos. ropa
Duron Sd Cum
BE Tant Fans
Mecs OF
Maur grs ania
“i request o-Church Atandance” Church is ete t 9.5 Mand shout about
pean ie ehe ma ee ONLY ts Ono See dou Fos and toa
cs tea tony an
sas Dares
Denia Reason You need to fnd a place of worship win § mies of your home.
Ces)
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 31 of 35
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
Case 1:11-0v-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 32 of 35
Diemas Charis, Tae.
Disciplinary Report
e = 5
ian Bus: Ey
=) ETA
ee Du co
mn
Hna Y o.
mania
este Commas:
a A
Re =
(ee
p=
cs
SEE aractri(S) PAGES
0 u
noo
Diemas Charis, Tae.
Disciplinary Report
e = 5
ian Bus: Ey
=) ETA
ee Du co
mn
Hna Y o.
mania
este Commas:
a A
Re =
(ee
p=
cs
SEE aractri(S) PAGES
0 u
noo
Case 1:11-0v-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012 Page 33 of 35
Case 1:11-cv20120.PAS Document 60 Entered on FLED Docket 10/03/2011 Page 28 of 39
De
Re
Bese Report |
Case 1:11-cv20120.PAS Document 60 Entered on FLED Docket 10/03/2011 Page 28 of 39
De
Re
Bese Report |
Case 111-0720120/PAS Document 92 Enered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2012. Page 34 of 35
IV. FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
a the oct was comittad ae charged. Coda 108 and Codo 309
b. me following act was committed:
ce. No prohibited act vas comitted: Expunge sccording to your Statement of Nork,
Y. SPECIFIC EVIDENCE RELIED ON TO SUPPORT PINDINGS
Your due process rights wore read and reviewed with you by the CBC Connier
Hearing, ou staves you underatend your rights.
at the tine of the
fanstactare, er nero = ét ba BERNER ER rg
SOS SS cette Seats meee tue Unio Pete aoe ee ay
rac tested tae Net 16 ee. affınder bujooreans hag driven the venlete fron hie Nowe to the facility
Ss espe shen a ce uve pn as ey Nt
ESTER air Mie inl eae ine Nero er hee corer e
VI. SANCTION RECOMMENDATION aascd on the above evidence the CDC Comittee recomendo
Srtender Bujdween, Traian remain Disciplinery transferred.
VIT. REASON FOR SANCTION RECOMMENDATION
To deter thie and other inmates from committing similar acte in the
future.
VIII. APPEAL RIGHTS Inmate was advised
Tur dnnace ban been adviecd GE the findings, specific Evidence relied on, action and reasons for
ThE ARISE MS ee Dane has been advived ‘of Mia sight to appeal under the Administrativo Renedy
EMSS Ge op hetecr within 20 days of the inposieion of the sanction to the Regional Director
ERS se enie cepoce has Deon given eo the ianate:
IX. DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
chadepeston ember Member
sona Ask |
X. ACTION BY DHO
Aypes tome/Sigaature - ko ote
FORE
mie torn may be repli
IV. FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
a the oct was comittad ae charged. Coda 108 and Codo 309
b. me following act was committed:
ce. No prohibited act vas comitted: Expunge sccording to your Statement of Nork,
Y. SPECIFIC EVIDENCE RELIED ON TO SUPPORT PINDINGS
Your due process rights wore read and reviewed with you by the CBC Connier
Hearing, ou staves you underatend your rights.
at the tine of the
fanstactare, er nero = ét ba BERNER ER rg
SOS SS cette Seats meee tue Unio Pete aoe ee ay
rac tested tae Net 16 ee. affınder bujooreans hag driven the venlete fron hie Nowe to the facility
Ss espe shen a ce uve pn as ey Nt
ESTER air Mie inl eae ine Nero er hee corer e
VI. SANCTION RECOMMENDATION aascd on the above evidence the CDC Comittee recomendo
Srtender Bujdween, Traian remain Disciplinery transferred.
VIT. REASON FOR SANCTION RECOMMENDATION
To deter thie and other inmates from committing similar acte in the
future.
VIII. APPEAL RIGHTS Inmate was advised
Tur dnnace ban been adviecd GE the findings, specific Evidence relied on, action and reasons for
ThE ARISE MS ee Dane has been advived ‘of Mia sight to appeal under the Administrativo Renedy
EMSS Ge op hetecr within 20 days of the inposieion of the sanction to the Regional Director
ERS se enie cepoce has Deon given eo the ianate:
IX. DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
chadepeston ember Member
sona Ask |
X. ACTION BY DHO
Aypes tome/Sigaature - ko ote
FORE
mie torn may be repli
Case 1:11-0/-20120-PAS Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/20:
ans 0 CENTER DISCIPLINE COMATETED REPOND ICE") Eh Page $5 of SS
De pesarmaner oF JUSTICE FEDERAL, BUREAU OP PRISONS
PE So u
Sunmary of chargela Possession, ant or Introduction of a hosardoua cool / violating a |
NOTICE OF CHARGE (S)
bate srypea Nane/sägnature PRO
A. Advance written notice of charges copy of incident report) was given co inmace on
e ens dr WP ( Renkdene Tofuscd vo accept a copy of
The charges wien RE MIE ploked Up by the Us Marea,
5. The COC Messing was held on 39/29 ne oise
©. the semate wor advised of his rights before Eble COC by: Bobbie Levery
en 10/22/30 aná o copy of the advinenent of right
IZ. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE
A apta safe sist, jo staff reprenne, eng crgimly coles for Co
D. Tomate requested staff representative and NA appeared.
oquested atatt representative declined or could not appear Dut inmate was advised of option
‘Gnother staff sepreseneavive with the result chat: State
POE Sip nd étendre Bujduveams aid not request another
XII PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
AOS mate has been advised of his right to present a statement or to remain lent
rah ding “aeiteen’ tement of unavatioie, witnenses, and. for
ST trueno 15 appear En ha benoi? at the hearine,
Tinatecadaice/aentee the charge(s) during the investigación
Summary of Imace Statement
: “he Agee costra we moria
acia (Doral Bares
2. D'Or of santineny OF each Le attached: (eo
5 Tpe'Tetlteing persone requested were not celled for the reason{s)given: MA
Zo Gmavatiagie tre
D. Documentary Evidence: im addition to the incident Report and snvestigation, the Comittee
2! __ gratter sh folioeig derma tne_Seraes_—senaidecrd fodiens dome
SAR alloring stfender Bujalveanıre mito to trenepore. hin ana photos of the cell
prose and eharger
2. eier información vas considered by the (oc and nor provided to innate Lies/Mon}
6
ans 0 CENTER DISCIPLINE COMATETED REPOND ICE") Eh Page $5 of SS
De pesarmaner oF JUSTICE FEDERAL, BUREAU OP PRISONS
PE So u
Sunmary of chargela Possession, ant or Introduction of a hosardoua cool / violating a |
NOTICE OF CHARGE (S)
bate srypea Nane/sägnature PRO
A. Advance written notice of charges copy of incident report) was given co inmace on
e ens dr WP ( Renkdene Tofuscd vo accept a copy of
The charges wien RE MIE ploked Up by the Us Marea,
5. The COC Messing was held on 39/29 ne oise
©. the semate wor advised of his rights before Eble COC by: Bobbie Levery
en 10/22/30 aná o copy of the advinenent of right
IZ. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE
A apta safe sist, jo staff reprenne, eng crgimly coles for Co
D. Tomate requested staff representative and NA appeared.
oquested atatt representative declined or could not appear Dut inmate was advised of option
‘Gnother staff sepreseneavive with the result chat: State
POE Sip nd étendre Bujduveams aid not request another
XII PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
AOS mate has been advised of his right to present a statement or to remain lent
rah ding “aeiteen’ tement of unavatioie, witnenses, and. for
ST trueno 15 appear En ha benoi? at the hearine,
Tinatecadaice/aentee the charge(s) during the investigación
Summary of Imace Statement
: “he Agee costra we moria
acia (Doral Bares
2. D'Or of santineny OF each Le attached: (eo
5 Tpe'Tetlteing persone requested were not celled for the reason{s)given: MA
Zo Gmavatiagie tre
D. Documentary Evidence: im addition to the incident Report and snvestigation, the Comittee
2! __ gratter sh folioeig derma tne_Seraes_—senaidecrd fodiens dome
SAR alloring stfender Bujalveanıre mito to trenepore. hin ana photos of the cell
prose and eharger
2. eier información vas considered by the (oc and nor provided to innate Lies/Mon}
6
Tags
Categories
GeneralDownload
Download Slideshow Get the original presentation fileQuick Actions
Statistics
- Views 972
- Slides 35
- Age 4871 days
Related Slideshows
22
Pray For The Peace Of Jerusalem and You Will Prosper
RodolfoMoralesMarcuc
33 views
26
Don_t_Waste_Your_Life_God.....powerpoint
chalobrido8
36 views
31
VILLASUR_FACTORS_TO_CONSIDER_IN_PLATING_SALAD_10-13.pdf
JaiJai148317
33 views
14
Fertility awareness methods for women in the society
Isaiah47
30 views
35
Chapter 5 Arithmetic Functions Computer Organisation and Architecture
RitikSharma297999
29 views
5
syakira bhasa inggris (1) (1).pptx.......
ourcommunity56
30 views