Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Walter D. Hill, No. 08741-025 v. Joseph R. Murphy

June 26, 2012

WALTER D. HILL, NO. 08741-025, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOSEPH R. MURPHY, SPECIAL AGENT, BRAD ROSSLER, SPECIAL AGENT, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Walter Hill, a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") who currently is incarcerated in the Butner Correctional Complex, brings this action pro se pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights by persons acting under color of federal law. Plaintiff is currently serving a sixty month sentence which this Court imposed on November 12, 2010. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:

(a) Screening. -- The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

(b) Grounds for Dismissal. -- On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint--

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

An action or claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Conversely, a complaint is plausible on its face "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations as true, see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir. 2011), some factual allegations may be so sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a plaintiff's claim. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). Additionally, Courts "should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements." Id. At the same time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.

The Amended Complaint

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 21) is now controlling. Plaintiff claims violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights based on alleged incidents that occurred during questioning by the Defendants, FBI Special Agents Murphy and Rossler, prior to Plaintiff's indictment in United States v. Walter D. Hill, Case No. 3:09-cr-30116 MJR. In that case, Hill pleaded guilty to charges of attempted extortion and making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS").

Plaintiff first claims that Defendants' confiscation of his weapon during questioning constitutes an unlawful seizure in violation of his constitutional rights.

As his second claim, Hill states that Special Agents Murphy and Rossler unlawfully detained, strip-searched and interrogated him for an extended period of time, while denying him access to legal counsel.

Hill also claims that Defendants violated his due process rights by harsh interrogation, by unlawfully arresting and detaining him in his home, and by displaying excessive force. Hill further asserts that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by showing deliberate indifference toward his right to proper and necessary medical attention and treatment while talking to him in his home. Plaintiff claims that, unbeknownst to him at the time, he ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.