United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. RUSSELL, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Michael Owlfeather
Gorbey's Complaint (ECF No. 1) and Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2). For the reasons set
forth below, the Court will dismiss the Complaint because it
fails to comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g) (2018) and does not pass 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
(2018)'s screening provisions. The Court will also deny
Gorbey's Motion For Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
is a prisoner committed to the custody of the Federal Bureau
of Prisons (“BOP”) at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Cumberland, Maryland
(“FCI-Cumberland”). (Compl. at 1, ECF No. 1). In
his Complaint, Gorbey brings seven “grounds” for
relief, which the Court construes as claims. Gorbey's
first claim asserts that all of the named Defendants have
conspired to commit “false imprisonment leading to
imminent danger” based on his continued assignment to
the segregated housing unit (“SHU”) following a
disciplinary hearing. (Id. at 2). Gorbey states that
the hearing, which took place on March 20, 2019, did not
result in an active sentence for disciplinary segregation,
but he was nevertheless kept in segregation. (Id.).
Defendant Captain Felix told Gorbey he was being held in the
SHU for rescoring of his classification which would add three
points to his “custody points.” (Id.).
Gorbey alleges that the rescoring was done to
“knowingly cause adverse effects to Gorbey's
custody points that would otherwise score differently on the
compound.” (Id. at 2-3).
to the first claim, Gorbey's second claim is that his
transfer to another prison as a result of his segregation
confinement and related increase in custody points is
unconstitutional. (Id. at 3-4). In this claim,
Gorbey makes clear that he was convicted of the rule
violation for possessing a controlled dangerous substance,
K2. (Id. at 3). He asserts that the
“[e]xcessive lighting and things and denial of
treatment for (months more) seriously effecting his
glaucoma” places him in imminent danger.
(Id.). He states, “prisons cannot transfer
inmates to punish them for complaining or to [impede] or moot
lawsuits.” (Id. at 4).
third claim, Gorbey alleges that the Disciplinary Hearing
Officer (“DHO”), Mr. Huff, allowed Gorbey to sit
in administrative segregation for seventy days in retaliation
for Gorbey's request for a staff representative at his
hearing and “then deliberately convicted Gorbey on a
bogus 113 that is due to be expunged” for
“multiple due process and equal protection
violations.” (Id.). In Gorbey's view, his
due process rights were violated because a staff member who
“took significant part in the incident” also
conducted the drug field test. (Id.). Gorbey
contends that the testing procedure used in his case is
unreliable and a second test to confirm the result was not
conducted. (Id. at 5). Gorbey also alleges a
violation of his equal protection rights because inmates who
are charged with possession of suboxone or have a positive
urine test receive automatic lab tests while those charged
with possession of K2 do not. (Id.). He adds that
BOP staff failed to protect evidence in his case and insists
that his disciplinary conviction will ultimately be expunged.
brings his fourth claim against Richard D. Bennett, District
Judge for the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland. (Id. at 6). Gorbey alleges that the
Judge Bennett has been “colluding with” BOP staff
in the cases he has filed with this Court seeking to
challenge “point manipulations” and
“transfers.” (Id.). Gorbey previously
filed an emergency 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus
petition for an injunction in this Court. (Id.).
Gorbey contends that Judge Bennett “impeded” his
petition by dismissing it, requiring him to file another
petition which Judge Bennett also dismissed. (Id.).
Gorbey asserts that judicial immunity does not protect Judge
Bennett in this case because his cases were not docketed and
Judge Bennett was “colluding outside the court.”
(Id. at 6-7). Gorbey concludes that the United
States and the Administrative Offices for the Federal
Judiciary are liable for Judge Bennett's actions.
(Id. at 7).
fifth claim, Gorbey pleads that Matthew Mellady, Regional
Counsel for the BOP's Mid-Atlantic Region, has been
denying Gorbey's tort claims against the BOP “for
years now.” (Id. at 8). Gorbey explains that
Mellady has been denying all of Gorbey's regional
appeals, especially those for medical care. (Id.).
These appeals include: denial of glaucoma treatment; denial
of lower bunk status; denial of treatment for foot injury;
denial of medical shoes; and exposure to black mold.
(Id.). Gorbey states that Mellady's actions are
keeping him in “imminent danger.” (Id.).
sixth claim alleges that Mr. Taylor, who is the Trust Fund
Supervisor for FCI-Cumberland, refused to complete
court-ordered trust account statements. (Id.).
Gorbey believes that Taylor has refused to do so in order to
deliberately impede his access to courts while Gorbey is
under imminent danger. (Id.). Gorbey does not expand
upon the alleged imminent danger; rather, he simply concludes
that all of his efforts to litigate claims concern matters of
imminent danger. (Id.).
seventh claim, Gorbey asserts that he has been denied proper
medical care which “places him in imminent danger[
].” (Id. at 9). Gorbey states that he was
denied a lower bunk assignment, denied issuance of medical
shoes, denied medical treatment for a foot injury, denied
treatment for glaucoma, and has been exposed to black mold.
seeks: $250, 000.00 from each Defendant; “all point
manipulations removed;” an injunction against a
transfer or in the alternative, an order to have him stay
within the State of Maryland so he can complete his Maryland
state-court remedies. (Id. at 9).
March 27, 2019, Gorbey filed the instant Complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
(ECF No. 1). The case was transferred to this Court on May
23, 2019. (ECF Nos. 4, 5).