Teryaeva-Reed v. BONDI

Background

Julia Teryaeva-Reed filed a pro se civil-rights action against fifteen defendants: the United States and fourteen federal officials, including the Attorney General, Bureau of Prisons officials, officials at several federal facilities, an unnamed health-services administrator, and a United States Marshal Service director. The complaint described alleged mistreatment beginning in 2017 at facilities in Alabama, Florida, and California. It alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement, improper and retaliatory transfers, violations of federal and state law, violations of agency policies, and a sentence that was longer than necessary because of the transfers.

The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner's complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court dismissed the complaint because of several pleading and case-management deficiencies:

- The 87-page narrative did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)'s requirement of a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. The court stated that the complaint was lengthy, confusing, and included legal arguments rather than brief descriptions of each alleged wrongful act. - The complaint appeared to violate Rule 20's joinder requirements by combining unrelated claims involving different facilities, events, defendants, and legal or factual questions. The court gave as examples the claim about placement in a special housing unit at FDC Miami and the claim about transfer from FCI Dublin to FDC Miami. - Claims based on events at FDC Miami appeared to have venue in the Southern District of Florida because the events occurred there, while the plaintiff was not located in this district and the defendants did not appear to reside here. - The claim concerning transfer from FCI Dublin to FDC Miami was duplicative of a claim raised and rejected in an earlier related proceeding. The court stated that repetitive litigation may be dismissed as malicious under the federal statute governing complaints filed without prepayment of fees.

The court granted leave to amend. It directed the plaintiff to briefly identify each wrongful act, when it occurred, what happened or failed to happen, which defendant was involved, and which federal law or constitutional provision was allegedly violated. The court also advised her to consider whether the claims belonged in this district.

Requests for Counsel and a Stay

The court denied the request for appointment of counsel. It explained that there is generally no constitutional right to a lawyer in a civil case and that appointed counsel is reserved for exceptional circumstances. Because there was no operative complaint and it was unclear whether the plaintiff would succeed, the court found no exceptional circumstances at that stage.

The court also denied the request to hold the case in abeyance while a separate detention or removal proceeding and exhaustion of Federal Tort Claims Act requirements were addressed. The court cited uncertainty about whether the action could proceed, the apparent venue problems, the duplicative transfer claim, and the plaintiff's removal from the United States and lack of a current address.

Order

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint within 28 days, using the case caption and number specified in the order and labeling the first page “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The amended complaint would replace the earlier complaint and had to include all claims and defendants the plaintiff wished to pursue.

The court denied the requests for appointment of counsel and for a stay and abeyance. It also required the plaintiff, within 28 days, to provide her current address and state whether she intended to prosecute the action. The court stated that failure to file a proper amended complaint on time would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.