Gage v. FCI Otisville Federal Correctional Institution

Background

Anwar L. Gage, who was incarcerated at FCI Fairton when the order was entered, sued FCI Otisville Federal Correctional Institution and numerous individuals over events that allegedly occurred while he was incarcerated at FCI Otisville. Gage alleged that prison personnel failed to protect him from assaults by other prisoners and mistreated him during and after those incidents. The opinion describes allegations involving assaults by Robert Johnson, Daniel Pineyro, and Marcus Roe, as well as the use of pepper spray and the denial of water, medical attention, bathroom access, and showers after one incident.

Gage filed the action without a lawyer and asked the court to appoint pro bono counsel. The filing fee had been paid. An earlier dismissal for an apparent failure to pay the fee was later vacated after the court learned that the fee had in fact been paid and the case was reopened.

Claims Against FCI Otisville

Because Gage alleged constitutional violations by federal-government employees, the court treated his claims as arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. A Bivens claim is a constitutional-rights lawsuit seeking relief from an individual federal officer. The court explained that the proper defendant must be an individual federal official, not a federal agency or facility.

The court therefore dismissed Gage’s claims against FCI Otisville for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The opinion did not dismiss the claims against the remaining individual defendants at this stage.

Service on Remaining Defendants

The Clerk of Court was directed to issue summonses for Warden W.S. Plirer, Special Investigative Supervisor Clemons, Special Investigative Agent Sussney, Dr. Fazio, Captain Okane, Lieutenant Johnson, and Correction Officers Colins, Taylor, Iconcleco, Tsarusky, and R. Ferry. Gage was directed to serve each defendant within 90 days after the summonses were issued. The court stated that it may dismiss the claims against defendants who are not served, or for whom no extension is requested, within that period.

Request for Counsel

The court denied Gage’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later time. For purposes of the request, the court assumed that Gage’s claims had some likelihood of merit. It nevertheless found that Gage had not shown why he needed a lawyer at that stage. The court relied on his ability to present relevant facts and arguments, the lack of demonstrated need for outside investigation, and the court’s view that the claims were not too complex for him to handle then.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas dismissed Gage’s claims against FCI Otisville for failure to state a claim, directed issuance of summonses for the remaining defendants, and denied the motion for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.