Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Page: 1 of 40
TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU,
Appellant/Plaintiff,
vs.
DISMAS CHARITIES, INC., ANA GISPERT, DEREK THOMAS and LASHANDA ADAMS,
Appellees/Defendants.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case: 13-11599
Page: 2 of 40
* Ajm -.
7/t/b/9rf &u3l>Urftf//U vs.lasho//<M /toA/is APPeaino 12>-/JS9?-<*1 lth Cir. R. 26.1 (enclosed) requires that a Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement must be filed by the appellant with this court within 14 days after the date the appeal is docketed in this court, and must be included within the principal brief filed by any party, and included within any petition, answer, motion or response filed by any party. You may use this form to fulfill this requirement. In alphabetical order, with one name per line, please list the trial judge(s), and all attorneys, persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, or corporations that have an interest in the outcome of this case or appeal, including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates and parent corporations, including any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of the party's stock, and other identifiable legal entities related to a party.
(please type or print legibly):
Case: 13-11599
Page: 3 of 40
Table of Citations
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963,41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).
Massachusetts Correctional Institution v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445,454,105 S.Ct. 2768,2773, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985).
Doby v. DeCrescenzo, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13175, *40 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 9,
1996).
Case: 13-11599
. m-- s
Page: 4 of 40
Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1981)(citation omitted).
682 F.2d at 1246-47
Mathes v. Ireland, 419 N.E.2d 782,784 (Ind.Ct.App.1981). United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164,171 (1974).
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 (93 SC 2041,2048, 36 LE2d
854) (1973).
Enigwe v. Zenk, No. 03-CV-854 (CBA), 2006 WL 2654985, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2006) (unpublished).
Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks,436 U.S. 149,155, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978).
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn,457 U.S. 830, 842,102 S.Ct. 2764, 73 L.Ed.2d 418 (1982).
Skelton v. Pri-Cor, Inc.,963 F.2d 100,102 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 503 U.S. 989, 112 S.Ct. 1682,118 L.Ed.2d 398 (1992)
Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1981)(citation omitted).
682 F.2d at 1246-47.
Case: 13-11599
fit
Page: 5 of 40
Statement of Facts
the acknowledgement of all regulations as well as the receipt of a Dismas Charities Handbook. However, the Plaintiff7Appellant did not receive a
hard copy, as there were none available.
Case: 13-11599
Page: 6 of 40
Case: 13-11599
Page: 7 of 40
Sundays, located 16 minutes by car (9.5 miles) from the Dismas Charities
halfway house, under the pretext of Federal Guidelines. The
freedom and the free exercise thereof, and further violating the United
States stance on separation of church and state.
9. In violation of his Title VII protections, the Plaintiff/Appellant was discriminated against and harassed constantly, by the Defendants/Appellees, because he was a foreigner, spoke English with an
due to severe medical problems. The USPO Office was advised and
Plaintiff7Appellant to report once a week to Dismas halfway house. 11. On October 13,2010, the PlaintiffAppellant drove his family
Case: 13-11599
Page: 8 of 40
13. Having a cellular telephone in the car, does not represent a violation
for prisoners on home confinement as halfway house rules and
regulations are not the same as home confinement rules and regulations.
Plaintiff/Appellant does not smoke, and operating a motor vehicle without prior approval represents a minor violation, and does not require
incarceration.
in the same day, time and place, without Due Process of Law. Not all
Case: 13-11599
Page: 9 of 40
15. On October 20, 2010, at 6:30 A.M., while sleeping in his bed at Dismas House, the PlaintifFAppellant 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 Law.
16. The incarceration was done without the knowledge ofUSPO and
CCM Director, Carlos Rodriguez, as he did not sign the papers for the
against the Plaintiff/Appellant and no investigation of any kind was carried out against him. No federal employee of F.D.C. wanted to get
involved with his case, they were aware of the covert and illegal actions
of the Defendant. Federal Department of Corrections Miami Counselor
Price and Unit Manager Harrison, under the strict suggestions of the
F.D.C. warden, attempted in a few instances to contact the office of CCM
Director, Carlos Rodriguez, to no avail.
Case: 13-11599
Page: 10 of 40
Case: 13-11599
Page: 11 of 40
MOTION for the Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information, Under Rule 34 by Traian Bujduveanu. The Judge of lower
tribunal entered GENERAL ORDER ON DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS,
Electronically Stored Informations (Docket Entry #56). Appellant/Plaintiff, Traian Bujduveanu filed MOTION to Compel
Second Request for Production of Documents, First and Second Set of
Case: 13-11599
Page: 12 of 40
impasses Appellant/Plaintiff, Traian Bujduveanu filed NOTICE of Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry #70).
11. On March 29th 2013, the Judge from the lower tribunal entered an
ORDER granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; deny
Entry#131andl32).
10
Case: 13-11599
* *
Page: 13 of 40
Argument(s)
(1974), a prisoner facing a disciplinary hearing that may result in the loss of
a liberty interest must receive "(1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and
Case: 13-11599
Page: 14 of 40
received. See Parenti v. Ponte, 727 F.2d 21,25 (1st Cir.1984). The
CCM office based in Miami reports and abides by the rules and regulations
set by the Federal Bureau of Prison. Accordingly, the CCM office has to use
proper Federal Forms each time a prisoner is concerned. All documents
Reciept (BP-821.051) were ever provided to the Plaintiff7Appellant, because they did not and do not exist to this
day.
and custody forms must be filled out with the appropriate dates
and signatures, and a copy must be given to the transferred
12
Case: 13-11599
Page: 15 of 40
facilities to federal intuitions is delegated to CCMs. 4. The letter from Derek Thomas to offender Traian Bujduveanu,
a fabricated document, also does not have a date.
the program has been poor, as witnessed by his inability to follow all of the rules and regulations set forth by Dismas
Charities and the Bureau of Prisons." Yet all other documents
state that he is cooperative and that he did all community transition courses, and that he will no longer benefit from the
13
Case: 13-11599
Page: 16 of 40
stating that they have attempted to return the property to the family of the Plaintiff7Appellant. At this time the property of
the PlaintifE^Appellant is still in the Derek Thomas' office and
14
Case: 13-11599
Page: 17 of 40
inmate, not issued to through regular channels. However, given the fact that the Plaintiff/Appellant was on home confinement, even this charge would not be a perfect fit given
the fact that those on home confinement are afforded additional
cause his removal from the program rather than one that is more in line with the Plaintiff7Appellant's alleged actions that
took place that day. Given the harmless nature of a cell phone, and its inability to enable an inmate to escape from a
We therefore argue that the trial court erredin failing to deny the Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment, and would humbly request that
Order Granting said Summary Judgment overturned.
15
Case: 13-11599
Page: 18 of 40
Issue #2; Whether the lower tribunal erred in granting Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, by overlooking Plaintiffs /Appellant's claims for False Arrest and Imprisonment?
16
Case: 13-11599
Page: 19 of 40
Plaintiff/Appellant. Although, the Defendant was not the one that physically
placed the Plaintiff7Appellant in specific confined area and held him against
his will, their acts were the causal act that lead to the Plaintiff/Appellant being placed in prison. 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.
However, a police officer may be held to have "initiated" a criminal
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 false information." However, a private citizen may be held
liable for false arrest under 1983 if he or she caused the plaintiff to be
17
Case: 13-11599
Page: 20 of 40
arrested by virtue of false statements he or she made to the police. Doby v. DeCrescenzo, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13175, *40 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 9,1996)
We therefore argue that the trial court erred in failing to deny the
Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment, and would humbly request that
Order Granting said Summary Judgment overturned.
Issue #3: Whether the lower tribunal erred in granting Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, by overlooking Plaintiffs /Appellant's claims for Assault and Battery?
The Defendants/Appellee maked the claim that they are entitled to
summary judgment as the Plaintiff has not provided any facts to support
allegations of assault and battery. It is clear that no such record of the
assaults and battery that took place as the Defendant's refused to provide the
Plaintiff/Appellant with and means of documenting said actions. The
prison officials could foreclose prison inmates from filing civil rights
18
Case: 13-11599
Page: 21 of 40
*2 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 19, 2007) (unpublished) (holding allegation that prisoner could not get grievance policy or forms barred summary judgment for
defendants).
Anna Gispert's admission of not having provided BP-9 forms to Plaintiff7Appellant, provides the Plaintiff/Appellant no means of
Bureau of Prisons prior to being sent back to prison, and currently in his
civil action against the Defendants. Enigwe v. Zenk, No. 03-CV-854 (CBA), 2006 WL 2654985, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2006) (unpublished)
19
Case: 13-11599
Page: 22 of 40
We therefore argue that the trial court erred in failing to deny the Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment, and would humbly request that
Order Granting said Summary Judgment overturned.
Issue #4: Whether the lower tribunal erred in granting Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, by overlooking Plaintiffs /Appellant's
claims for Malicious Prosecution?
The Defendants argued that since the Plaintiff/Appellant has not, and
charge. "All federal claims for malicious prosecution are borrowed from the
common law tort... [which] imposes liability on a private person who
requires that state officials acting 'under color of law1 institute the criminal proceedings against the plaintiff and thereby deprive him of rights secured
20
Case: 13-11599
Page: 23 of 40
Yet again to combat the Defendant's/Appellees claim that they did not
initiate prosecution against the Plaintiff, it is undeniable that the US
Marshalls, and Division of Corrections would not have even been aware of
any sort of alleged violation, had it not been for the request that were made
by the Defendants. Yet again, it was the direct and indirect actions of the Defendant, which lead to the prosecution, and subsequent confinement of
the Plaintiff/Appellant. Section 28(5)(c) states that issue preclusion does not
apply if "the party sought to be precluded, as a result of the conduct of his
determination whether a party has had his day in court [including] such
considerations as ... the availability of new evidence..." Schwartz v. Public
Adm'r of Bronx County, 24 N.Y.2d 65,298 N.Y.S.2d 955, 961,246 N.E.2d 725, 729 (1969).
they were not afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate whether
21
Case: 13-11599
'*
Page: 24 of 40
probable cause existed for their arrest. First, the determination of probable
cause was based on the false testimony of Dawn Farris at preliminary
hearing. At trial she recanted virtually all the key accusations necessary to
conclude that a crime had occurredand that the Danners were likely to have
committed it. Second, there were key facts that were not and could not have
been discovered before the preliminary hearing despite the district attorney's
open file policy. Until cross examination of the other sales clerk at
preliminary hearing, no one knew that a customer, Melody Winn, had been
present when the alleged theft took place. Nor was it known that the precise time of the alleged theft had been recorded by the store's cash register on the
customer's check. Winn's testimony at trial, that she had seen nothing out of
the ordinary during her purchase, was key to the Danner's defense and to the
not- guilty verdict.
22
Case: 13-11599
Page: 25 of 40
906 F.2d 784, 788 (1st Cir.1990). In articulating the elements of a malicious
prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, we have held that "the
complaint must assert that the malicious conduct was so egregious that it
violated substantive or procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth
Id. at 410. "For procedural due process purposes ... the plaintiff usually must
show the alleged conduct deprived him of liberty by a distortion and
corruption of the processes of law, i.e., corruption of witnesses, falsification
of evidence, or some other egregious conduct resulting in the denial of a fair trial.... In addition, the plaintiff must show there was no adequate state post
deprivation remedy available to rectify the harm.
Given the fact that the Plaintiff/Appellant was subject to policies and procedures of the both Dismas House Charities Correctional procedures, and
and more importantly that he was not given the opportunity to do so, it
should be clear to this court that "conscience shocking" element of proving
malicious prosecution has been met. First and foremost, the Defendants'
actions denied the Plaintiff7Appellant the ability to show the how alleged
conduct deprived him of liberty, by a distortion and corruption of the
23
Case: 13-11599
Page: 26 of 40
ultimately in the denial of a fair trial Plaintiff/Appellant. We therefore argue that the trial court erred in failing to deny the
Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment, and would humbly request that
Order Granting said Summary Judgment overturned.
Issue #5: Whether the lower tribunal erred in granting Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, by overlooking Plaintiffs /Appellant's claims for Negligence and Gross Negligence? The Plaintiff/Appellant provided the appropriate staff members of the halfway house with copies of all medical records indicating the severity of
not provided meals that were diabetic friendly, and was given disciplinary
action for incident where is wife was delivering food as a result of him not
24
Case: 13-11599
Page: 27 of 40
inmates who require such diets. In addition, inmates with religious dietary requirements may apply for the religious diet program, designed to address
person's constitutional rights. See Lozano v. Smith,718 F.2d 756, 768 (5th
Cir.1983)
25
Case: 13-11599
Page: 28 of 40
negligence case, neither the issue of proximate cause nor the sovereign
immunity defenses become germane until it has been established that a defendant owes to a plaintiff a duty of care that has been breached." Fox v.
Custis, 372 S.E.2d 373, 375 (Va. 1988). However, in Estate of Mathes v.
Ireland, 419 N.E.2d 782, 784 (Ind.Ct.App. 1981), the court held that under
319, "[f]or the duty to exist there must therefore not only be an actual taking charge of the third person, there must also be a knowledge of the likelihood
that he will cause bodily harm." The Defendants cannot make the claim
were provided all of his medical documentation, and moreover, they are
unable to skate around their duty to exercise care for the Plaintiff/Appellants
26
Case: 13-11599
Page: 29 of 40
We therefore argue that the trial court erred in failing to deny the
Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment, and would humbly request that
Order Granting said Summary Judgment overturned.
Issue #6; Whether the lower tribunal erred in granting Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, by overlooking Plaintiffs /Appellant's claims for violation of his First Amendment Rights?
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
attend a church outside of 5 miles from the facility. However in Dismas charities and division of Prison Guidelines state explicitly that, "You will be able to attend weekly church services, as approved by your Counselor,
maximum of three hours per week, including travel. Church must be within
(5) miles of the facility. (Church Bulletin and completed Church Report
Form must be provided upon your return back from the facility) Note: Exceptions to the (5) mile rule will only be made when your stated
27
Case: 13-11599
Page: 30 of 40
making an open declaration of his religion of choice being Greek Orthodox, and further making the case that the closest church is 9.5 miles away, the Defendants denied the Plaintiff/Appellant's request to attend his church
We therefore argue that the trial court erred in failing to deny the Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment, and would humbly request that
Order Granting said Summary Judgment overturned.
Issue #7: Whether the lower tribunal erred in granting Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, by overlooking Plaintiffs /AppeUant's claims for violation of his Fourth Amendment Rights?
Fourth Amendment-"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
28
Case: 13-11599
Page: 31 of 40
information regarding the illegal search and seizure, was deliberately destroyed by the Defendants. Having a cellulartelephone in the car, does not
represent a violation for prisoners on home confinement as halfway house
rules and regulations are not the same as home confinement rules and
of voluntary consent, it is not limited to proof that consent was given by the
defendant, but may show that the permission to search was obtained from 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).
29
Case: 13-11599
Page: 32 of 40
be no more than a pretext for the unjustified police intrusion against which
the Fourth Amendment is directed.' Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S.
218 (93 SC 2041,2048, 36 LE2d 854) (1973)]." United States v. Smith, 395
FSupp. 1155, 1156-57 (W.D.N.Y. 1975). It is my position that a defendant's
during the period of probation (see Inman v. State, 124 Ga. App. 190 (2)
(183 SE2d413) (1971)). "[probationary status does not convert a probationer's family, relatives and friends into 'second class' citizens
These people are not stripped of theirright of privacy because they may be
living with a probationer or [s]he may be living with them." State v. Fogarty,
supra at 151. The Supreme Court of Montana, the only court in the country
30
Case: 13-11599
Page: 33 of 40
may be searched "so that the legal interests of innocent third persons can be
adequately protected...."
We therefore argue that the trial court erred in failing to deny the Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment, and would humbly request that
Order Granting said Summary Judgment overturned. Issue #8; Whether the lower tribunal erred in granting Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, by overlooking Plaintiffs /Appellant's claims for violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights?
th
when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person
be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, withoutjust compensation."
The Double Jeopardy Clause includes three distinct constitutional
guarantees: (1) protection against a second prosecution for the same
31
Case: 13-11599
Page: 34 of 40
the same offense after a conviction; and (3) protection against multiple
punishments for the same offense.
occurred in the same day, time and place, without Due Process of Law. Not
all copies of the three written violations were released as requested by the discovery. On October 20, 2010, at 6:30 A.M ., while sleeping in his bed at Dismas House, the Plaintiff/Appellant 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 Law. On October 20,2010, at 6:30 A.M .,
incarceration was done without the knowledge ofUSPO and CCM Director,
Carlos Rodriguez, as he did not sign the papers for the incarceration, thus
32
Case: 13-11599
Page: 35 of 40
in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
not having provided BP-9 forms to Plaintiff7Appellant, provides the Plaintiff/Appellant 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 Plaintiff/Appellant very little
material documentation of his experiences at the halfway house. The
Plaintiff/Appellant again asserts that, it was their intention all along to deny
the Plaintiff/Appellant an opportunity to everhave a legitimate opportunity
33
Case: 13-11599
Page: 36 of 40
when he faced the Federal Bureau of Prisons prior to being sent back to prison, and currently in his civil action against the Defendants. Again we,
bring the courts attention to Enigwe v. Zenk, No. 03-CV-854 (CBA), 2006
WL 2654985, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15,2006) (unpublished) "denying
We therefore argue that the trial court erred in failing to deny the
Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment, and would humbly request that
Order Granting said Summary Judgment overturned.
Issue #9: Whether the lower tribunal erred in granting Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, by overlooking Plaintiffs /Appellant's claims for violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights?
federal law, and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person or persons acting
under color of state law. See Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks,436 U.S. 149,155,
98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). The United States Supreme Court has
34
Case: 13-11599
H tf
Page: 37 of 40
held that where a private party has exercised powers that are "traditionally
the exclusive prerogative of the state," the private party may be considered a
state actor under 1983. Rendell-Baker v. Kohn,457 U.S. 830, 842, 102
S.Ct. 2764, 73 L.Ed.2d 418 (1982). Concluding that the maintenance of a prison system has "traditionally [been] the exclusive prerogative of the
state," courts have held that when a state contracts with a private corporation
to run its prisons, the private prison employees become subject to 1983
suits. See Skelton v. Pri-Cor, Inc.,963 F.2d 100,102 (6th Cir.), cert, denied,
503 U.S. 989,112 S.Ct. 1682, 118 L.Ed.2d 398 (1992); see also Lemoine v.
New Horizons Ranch & Ctr.,990 F.Supp. 498, 502 (N.D.Tex.1998) (private
employees of residential treatment center licensed by State of Texas subject
to 1983 suits). Again, as noted in our discussion of the Defendants' instances of
35
Case: 13-11599
, *
Page: 38 of 40
when in fact in violation of his doctor's orders, even going as far as to prevent his medical treatment, adding insult to injury. Furthermore, he was
not provided meals that were diabetic friendly, and was given disciplinary
action for incident where is wife was delivering food as a result of him not
receiving addicaquate nutrition from the halfway house. When asked, "who should have the last say on this matter, the doctor or the federal prison", Derek Thomas answered, "We have already had this conversation. Here the
Bureau of prison rules and not the doctor".
look at discrete areas of basic human needs. As we have recently held, " '(A)n institution's obligation under the eighth amendment is at an end if it
furnishes sentenced prisoners with adequate food, clothing, shelter,
sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.'" Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d
1129,1132-33 (9th Cir. 1981)(citation omitted). 682 F.2d at 1246-47.
Conclusion
36
Case: 13-11599
Page: 39 of 40
The trial court misapplied the law and committed reversible errors by
Granting the Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment without addressing the key factors addressed in the aforementioned brief. We humbly request
that Order Granting said Summary Judgment be overturned.
Certificate of Service
37
Case: 13-11599
Page: 40 of 40
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
delivered via U.S. Mail to the individuals and entities listed below on this
&2>
Signature
Dania, FL 33004-2835
Ana Gispert
Dismas Charities, Inc.
141 N.W.I St Avenue
Dania, FL 33004-2835
Derek Thomas
Dania, FL 33004-2835
Lashanda Adams
Dania, FL 33004-2835
Hollywood, FL 33021
38