INTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSINANDFORTHE ELEVENTHCIRCUIT CaseNo.:1311599E L.T.No.:1120120CIVSEITZ/SIMONTON TRAIANBUJDUVEANU, Appellant/Plaintiff, vs. DISMASCHARITIES,INC.,ANAGISPERT, DEREKTHOMASandLASHANDAADAMS, Appellees/Defendants.

ants. __________________________________/ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFOR THESOUTHERNDISTRICTOFFLORIDA INITIALBRIEFOFAPPELLANTTRAIANBUJDUVEANU TraianBujduveanu ProSePlaintiff/Appellant 5601WestBrowardBoulevard Plantation,Florida33317 Phone:(954)6637768

 INTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSINANDFORTHE ELEVENTHCIRCUIT CaseNo.:1311599E L.T.No.:1120120CIVSEITZ/SIMONTON TRAIANBUJDUVEANU, Appellant/Plaintiff, vs. DISMASCHARITIES,INC.,ANAGISPERT, DEREKTHOMASandLASHANDAADAMS, Appellees/Defendants. __________________________________/ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFOR THESOUTHERNDISTRICTOFFLORIDA INITIALBRIEFOFAPPELLANTTRAIANBUJDUVEANU TraianBujduveanu ProSePlaintiff/Appellant 5601WestBrowardBoulevard Plantation,Florida33317 Phone:(954)6637768

INTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSINANDFORTHE ELEVENTHCIRCUIT CaseNo.:1311599E L.T.No.:1120120CIVSEITZ/SIMONTON TRAIANBUJDUVEANU, Appellant/Plaintiff, vs. DISMASCHARITIES,INC.,ANAGISPERT, DEREKTHOMASandLASHANDAADAMS, Appellees/Defendants. __________________________________/ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFOR THESOUTHERNDISTRICTOFFLORIDA INITIALBRIEFOFAPPELLANTTRAIANBUJDUVEANU TraianBujduveanu ProSePlaintiff/Appellant 5601WestBrowardBoulevard Plantation,Florida33317 Phone:(954)6637768

TableofContents TableofCitations StatementsofFacts StatementsoftheCase Argument Issue1:Whetherthelowertribunalerredin grantingDefendantsMotionforSummary Judgment,byoverlookingDefendants ApparentAbuseofProcess? Issue#2:Whetherthelowertribunalerredin grantingDefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgment, byoverlookingPlaintiffs/Appellantsclaims forFalseArrestandImprisonment? Issue#3:Whetherthelowertribunalerred ingrantingDefendantsMotionforSummary Judgment,byoverlookingPlaintiffs/Appellants claimsforAssaultandBattery? Issue#4:Whetherthelowertribunalerredin grantingDefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgment, byoverlookingPlaintiffs/Appellants claimsforMaliciousProsecution? Issue#5:Whetherthelowertribunalerredin grantingDefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgment, byoverlookingPlaintiffs/Appellantsclaims forNegligenceandGrossNegligence? Page1 Page3 Page3 Page8

Page11

Page16

Page18

Page20

Page24

Issue#6:Whetherthelowertribunalerredin grantingDefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgment, byoverlookingPlaintiffs/Appellants claimsforviolationofhisFirstAmendmentRights? Issue#7:Whetherthelowertribunalerredin grantingDefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgment, byoverlookingPlaintiffs/Appellantsclaimsfor violationofhisFourthAmendmentRights? Issue#8:Whetherthelowertribunalerredin grantingDefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgment, byoverlookingPlaintiffs/Appellantsclaims forviolationofhisFifthandFourteenth AmendmentRights? Issue#9:Whetherthelowertribunalerredin grantingDefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgment, byoverlookingPlaintiffs/Appellantsclaimsfor violationofhisFifthandFourteenthAmendment Rights? Conclusion CertificateofService

Page27

Page28

Page31

Page34 Page37 Page38

TableofCitations Wolffv.McDonnell,418U.S.539,94S.Ct.2963,41L.Ed.2d935(1974). MassachusettsCorrectionalInstitutionv.Hill,472U.S.445,454,105S.Ct. 2768,2773,86L.Ed.2d356(1985). Parentiv.Ponte,727F.2d21,25(1stCir.1984). TheRestatement(2nd)ofTorts,31. Oviattv.Pearce,954F.2d1470,1474(9thCir.1992). Reed,77F.3dat1054Torres,966F.Supp.at1365. Dobyv.DeCrescenzo,1996U.S.Dist.LEXIS13175,*40(E.D.Pa.Sept.9, 1996). Chathamv.Adcock,(N.D.Ga.Sept.28,2007). Allenv.McMorris,No.4:06cv810SNL,2007WL172564,at*2(E.D. Mo.JEnigwev.Zenk,No.03CV854(CBA),2006WL2654985,at*4 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.15,2006)(unpublished)an.19,2007). Torresv.SuperintendentofPolice,893F.2d404,409(1stCir.1990). Schwartzv.PublicAdm'rofBronxCounty,24N.Y.2d65,298N.Y.S.2d 955,961,246N.E.2d725,729(1969). Moralesv.Ramirez,906F.2d784,788(1stCir.1990). 28C.F.R.547.20. Estellev.Gamble,429U.S.97,10304,97S.Ct.285,50L.Ed.2d251(1976).

Lozanov.Smith,718F.2d756,768(5thCir.1983). Wrightv.Rushen,642F.2d1129,113233(9thCir.1981)(citationomitted). 682F.2dat124647 Foxv.Custis,372S.E.2d373,375(Va.1988). Mathesv.Ireland,419N.E.2d782,784(Ind.Ct.App.1981). UnitedStatesv.Matlock,415U.S.164,171(1974). Schnecklothv.Bustamonte,412U.S.218(93SC2041,2048,36LE2d854) (1973). UnitedStatesv.Smith,395FSupp.1155,115657(W.D.N.Y.1975). Inmanv.State,124Ga.App.190(2)(183SE2d413)(1971)). Enigwev.Zenk,No.03CV854(CBA),2006WL2654985,at*4(E.D.N.Y. Sept.15,2006)(unpublished). FlaggBros.,Inc.v.Brooks,436U.S.149,155,98S.Ct.1729,56L.Ed.2d 185(1978). RendellBakerv.Kohn,457U.S.830,842,102S.Ct.2764,73L.Ed.2d418 (1982). Skeltonv.PriCor,Inc.,963F.2d100,102(6thCir.),cert.denied,503U.S. 989,112S.Ct.1682,118L.Ed.2d398(1992) Lemoinev.NewHorizonsRanch&Ctr.,990F.Supp.498,502 (N.D.Tex.1998). Wrightv.Rushen,642F.2d1129,113233(9thCir.1981)(citationomitted). 682F.2dat124647.

StatementofFacts

1.

OnJuly,28,2010,withtheapprovalofCCMDirectorCarlos

RodriguezthePlaintiff/AppellantwastransferfromColmanLow CorrectionalFacilitytoDismasCharities,Inc.halfwayhouse,locatedin Dania,Florida.

2.

Defendant/AppelleeDismasCharities,Inc.,isnonprofitcorporation

501(c)(3)organization,whooperates28halfwayhousesin13statesthat contractfromtheU.SGovernment,ofwhichCodefendantsAnaGispert, DerekTomasandLashandaAdamsareemployeesofDismasCharities, Inc.

3.

Defendant/AppelleeDismasCharitieshousehaslimitedindependent

disciplinarydiscretion,thusgivingitdiscretionoverminorofprohibited acts.AnyserioussanctionsrequiredapprovalofCCM,USPOand CommunitySanctionsrepresentatives.

4.

UponarrivalatDismasCharitiesfacility,Plaintiff/Appellantsigned

theacknowledgementofallregulationsaswellasthereceiptofaDismas CharitiesHandbook.However,thePlaintiff/Appellantdidnotreceivea hardcopy,astherewerenoneavailable.

5.

ThePlaintiff/Appellantprovidedtheappropriatestaffmemberscopies

ofdriverlicense,drivinghistoryfromtheDivisionofMotorVehiclesin

Tallahassee,vehicleregistration,andvalidinsurance,incompliancewith thetermsandconditionsnecessarytoobtainpermissiontooperatea motorvehicleduringsupervision.Bethatasitmay,thereasonforwhich thePlaintiff/Appellantwasnotapprovedtodrive,ascontendedbythe Defendants,isunknowneventoday.

6.

ThePlaintiff/Appellantprovidedtheappropriatestaffmemberscopies

ofallmedicalrecordsindicatingtheseverityofhismedicalconditionsand anydoctorrecommendationsconcerningprogramrequirementsfor manuallaborandworkoutsideofthefacility.

7.

DuringhisresidencyatDismasHouse,thePlaintiff/Appellantwas

constantlyterrorized,intimidated,andhumiliatedwithoutanyregardfor hismedicalconditionsorhisdignity,inthathewasforcedtodocleaning jobswheninfactinviolationofhisdoctorsorders,evengoingasfaras topreventhismedicaltreatment,addinginsulttoinjury.Whenasked, whoshouldhavethelastsayonthismatter,thedoctororthefederal prison'',DerekThomasanswered,Wehavealreadyhadthis conversation.HeretheBureauofprisonrulesandnotthedoctor.

8.

TheDefendants/AppelleeopenlydeniedthePlaintiff/Appellants

requesttoattendReligiousServicesataRomanianOrthodoxchurchon

Sundays,located16minutesbycar(9.5miles)fromtheDismasCharities halfwayhouse,underthepretextofFederalGuidelines.The Plaintiff/Appellantsresearchhasshownsuchguidelinesdonotexistand theFederalGovernmentremainsneutralregardingreligiouspracticeor distancestoandfromareligiousinstitutionatahalfwayhouse,thus constitutingaviolationofthePlaintiff/Appellantsrightstoreligious freedomandthefreeexercisethereof,andfurtherviolatingtheUnited Statesstanceonseparationofchurchandstate.

9.

InviolationofhisTitleVIIprotections,thePlaintiff/Appellantwas

discriminatedagainstandharassedconstantly,bythe Defendants/Appellees,becausehewasaforeigner,spokeEnglishwithan accent,practicedGreekOrthodoxReligionandhewaswhite.Similarly situatedresidentsatDismashousewerenottreatedalike.

10. OnSeptember28,2011,thePlaintiff/Appellantwasapprovedbythe

CCMDirectorCarlosRodriguez,tobetransferredtohomeconfinement, duetoseveremedicalproblems.TheUSPOOfficewasadvisedand agreedonPlaintiff/Appellant'shomeconfinementtransfer,requiringthe Plaintiff/AppellanttoreportonceaweektoDismashalfwayhouse.

11. OnOctober13,2010,thePlaintiff/Appellantdrovehisfamily

vehicletoDismashalfwayhouseforhisbiweeklyreport.
12. Anillegalsearchwasconductedofthevehiclethat

Plaintiff/Appellantdroveandpropertywasremovedfromthevehicle withouttheknowledgeofthePlaintiff/Appellantandwithoutthe Plaintiff/Appellantbeingpresentatthesearch.Defendantsassertedthata cellulartelephone,aphonechargerandapacketofcigaretteswerefound intheglovecompartmentofthecarandconfiscated.Dataandevidence fromthesurveillancecamerasthatcontainedinformationregardingthe illegalsearchandseizure,wasdeliberatelydestroyedbytheDefendants.

13. Havingacellulartelephoneinthecar,doesnotrepresentaviolation

forprisonersonhomeconfinementashalfwayhouserulesandregulations arenotthesameashomeconfinementrulesandregulations. Plaintiff/Appellantdoesnotsmoke,andoperatingamotorvehiclewithout priorapprovalrepresentsaminorviolation,anddoesnotrequire incarceration.

14. Asaresultofthisincident,thePlaintiff/Appellantwasgiventhree

separateviolations,ondifferentdates,forthesameincidentthatoccurred inthesameday,timeandplace,withoutDueProcessofLaw.Notall copiesofthethreewrittenviolationswerereleasedasrequestedbythe

discovery.
15. OnOctober20,2010,at6:30A.M.,whilesleepinginhisbedat

DismasHouse,thePlaintiff/AppellantwasarrestedbytwoU.S.Marshall agentsandtransportedtoF.D.C.Miami,withoutanychargeslevied againsthimandwithoutDueProcessLaw.

16. TheincarcerationwasdonewithouttheknowledgeofUSPOand

CCMDirector,CarlosRodriguez,ashedidnotsignthepapersforthe incarceration,thusmakingitclearthattheDefendantsengagedina campaignoferasingevidenceandfabricatingdocumentsinordertocover upanysuspicionoftheevents.ThePlaintiff/Appellantisawarethatthe followingdocumentshavebeenfabricated.

17. WhileincarceratedatF.D.C.Miami,nochargeswereeverlevied

againstthePlaintiff/Appellantandnoinvestigationofanykindwascarried outagainsthim.NofederalemployeeofF.D.C.wantedtogetinvolved withhiscase,theywereawareofthecovertandillegalactionsofthe Defendant.FederalDepartmentofCorrectionsMiamiCounselorPrice andUnitManagerHarrison,underthestrictsuggestionsoftheF.D.C. warden,attemptedinafewinstancestocontacttheofficeofCCM Director,CarlosRodriguez,tonoavail.

18. ThePlaintiff/AppellantwasreleasedfromF.D.C.MiamionJanuary

03,2011.

StatementoftheCase 1. OnJanuary12,2011,Appellant/Plaintiff,TraianBujduveanu,filed MOTIONforReturnofPropertyagainstDismasCharities,Inc.,Ana Ginspert(DocketEntry#1). 2. OnMarch29th,2011AppellanAppellant/Plaintiff,Traian Bujduveanu,filedAMENDEDCOMPLAINTofDamagesagainst DismasCharities,Inc.,AnaGinspert,DerekThomas,AdamsLeshota (DocketEntry#14). 3. OnMay4th,2011,Defendants/AppelleesfiledMOTIONtoDismiss AmendedComplaint(DocketEntry#26). 4. OnMay24th,2011Appellant/Plaintiff,TraianBujduveanu,filed MOTIONtoStrikeMOTIONtoDismissandIncorporatedMemorandum ofLaw. 5. OnMay25th,2011Defendants/AppelleesfiledRESPONSEtoMotion reMOTIONtoStrike(DocketEntry#35).

6. OnJune6th,2011,JudgedfromlowertribunalenteredENDORSED ORDERgrantingPlaintiff'sMotiontoStrikeDocumentfromtheDocket (DocketEntry#40). 7.OnAugust5th,2011Appellant/Plaintiff,TraianBujduveanufiled MOTIONfortheProductionofDocumentsandElectronicallyStored Information,UnderRule34byTraianBujduveanu.TheJudgeoflower tribunalenteredGENERALORDERONDISCOVERYOBJECTIONS. denying,withoutprejudice,Plaintiff'sMotionfortheProductionof DocumentsandElectronicallyStoredInformations,UnderRule34 (DocketEntries#50,51,and52). 8.OnAugust30,2011Appellant/Plaintiff,TraianBujduveanufiled MOTIONtoCompelProductionofDocumentsandElectronicallyStored Information(DocketEntry#53).TheDefendants/Appelleesrepliedwith NOTICEofCompliancewithMediationOrder(DocketEntry#55). OnSeptember9th,2011,Defendants/AppelleefiledRESPONSEin OppositionMOTIONtoCompelProductionofDocumentsand ElectronicallyStoredInformations(DocketEntry#56).Appellant/Plaintiff ,TraianBujduveanufiledMOTIONtoCompelSecondRequestfor ProductionofDocuments,FirstandSecondSetofInterrogatories.On

September28ththeDefendants/AppelleesfiledRESPONSEinOpposition reMOTIONtoCompelSecondRequestforProductionofDocuments, FirstandSecondSetofInterrogatories(DocketEntry#57,58,59). 9.Afterbeingunabletocompeldiscovery,andmediationendinginan impassesAppellant/Plaintiff,TraianBujduveanufiledNOTICEofMotion forSummaryJudgment(DocketEntry#70). 10.OnDecember16th,2011Defendant/Appelleesrespondedwitha MOTIONforSummaryJudgment(DocketEntry#83). 11.OnMarch29th2013,theJudgefromthelowertribunalenteredan ORDERgrantingDefendants'MotionforSummaryJudgmentdeny Plaintiff'sMotionforSummaryJudgment,andenteredaFINAL JUDGMENTinfavoroftheDefendantsagainstthePlaintiff(Docket Entry#131and132).

Argument(s) Issue#1:WhetherthelowertribunalerredingrantingDefendants MotionforSummaryJudgment,byoverlookingDefendants/Appellees ApparentAbuseofProcess? Abuseofprocessisacauseofactionintortarisingfromone partymakingamaliciousanddeliberatemisuseorperversionof regularlyissuedcourtprocess(civilorcriminal)notjustifiedbythe underlyinglegalaction.UnderWolffv.McDonnell,418U.S.539,94 S.Ct.2963,41L.Ed.2d935(1974),aprisonerfacingadisciplinary hearingthatmayresultinthelossofalibertyinterestmustreceive"(1) advancewrittennoticeofthedisciplinarycharges(2)anopportunity, whenconsistentwithinstitutionalsafetyandcorrectionalgoals,tocall witnessesandtopresentdocumentaryevidenceinhisdefense(3)a

writtenstatementbythefactfinderoftheevidencereliedonandthe reasonsforthedisciplinaryaction."Superintendent,Massachusetts CorrectionalInstitutionv.Hill,472U.S.445,454,105S.Ct.2768, 2773,86L.Ed.2d356(1985),citingWolff,418U.S.at56367,94 S.Ct.at2978.EventhoughSmithdidnothavealibertyinterestin remainingatGardner,hewasentitledtotheseproceduralsafeguards becauseheriskedthelossoflibertyentailedinisolationtime,a sanctionwhichheultimatelyreceived.SeeParentiv.Ponte,727F.2d 21,25(1stCir.1984).TheDefendantshaveanobligationtocomply withallstatutes,regulationsandguidelinesfromtheNationalArchives andRecordsAdministration.TheCCMofficebasedinMiamireports andabidesbytherulesandregulationssetbytheFederalBureauof Prison.Accordingly,theCCMofficehastouseproperFederal Formseachtimeaprisonerisconcerned.Alldocumentsmustbe documentedintheSentrysystemtobefullyincompliancewithall statutes,regulationsandguidelines.Theabusesofprocessofareas follows:
1.

NocopiesoftheTransferOrders(BPS399.058)norTransfer Reciept(BP821.051)wereeverprovidedtothe

Plaintiff/Appellant,becausetheydidnotanddonotexisttothis day.
2.

ThetransferofahalfwayhouseresidentbacktotheFederal PrisonitisNOTdonethruaMemorandum.TheUSFederal Governmentrequiresthatanapprovedform(BPS399.058)and (BP821.051),isusedforanyactiontakenbyafederal employee.Inthiscase,therequestMUSTbeplacedinthe SENTRYSYSTEMtotheUSMarshal,andthenotherTransfer andcustodyformsmustbefilledoutwiththeappropriatedates andsignatures,andacopymustbegiventothetransferred inmate.Thishasnottakenplacebecausechargesor investigationsagainstthePlaintiff/Appellant,wereneverlevied bytheFederalBureauofPrisons.ThiswasagrossFabrication withapremeditatedcoverup.

3.

TheLetterfromDerekThomastoCarlosRodrigues,whichisa fabricateddocumentalso,ithasnodate.Withoutadate,this letterisnotanofficialdocument.Evenmoredisturbingisthe factthatAuthoritytotransferfederalinmatesfromnonfederal facilitiestofederalintuitionsisdelegatedtoCCMs.

4.

TheletterfromDerekThomastooffenderTraianBujduveanu,a fabricateddocument,alsodoesnothaveadate.

5.

Thefabricatedletter,allegedlywrittenbyAnaGisperton October20,2010,statesthatMr.Bujduveanu'sadjustmentto theprogramhasbeenpoor,aswitnessedbyhisinabilityto followalloftherulesandregulationssetforthbyDismas CharitiesandtheBureauofPrisons.Yetallotherdocuments statethatheiscooperativeandthathedidallcommunity transitioncourses,andthathewillnolongerbenefitfromthe halfwayhouse.WhichleadsthePlaintiff/Appellantandthecourt toquestionwhetherallegedminorviolationsofwarrantsucha drasticchangeinopinion,andmoreover,whetherthischangein opinionwasdoneasmatteroffactorsimplytoremove Plaintiff/Appellantfromthefacility.

6.

InaletterfromAnaGisperttoBobbieLowery,datedJanuary5, 2011sheisinstructinghimtomakecertifieddocumentsstating thattheyhaveattemptedtoreturnthepropertytothefamilyof thePlaintiff/Appellant.Atthistimethepropertyofthe Plaintiff/AppellantisstillintheDerekThomasofficeandunder

hiscontrol.Sheispracticallyinstructingthemtolieandmake falsedocuments,asmyfamilywillattesttothefactthatthey werenevercontactedtoretrievemyproperty.

7.

TheapplicationofaviolationCode108Possession, Manufacture,orintroductionofahazardoustool(Toolsmost likelytobeusedinanescapeorescapeattemptortoserveasa weaponcapableofdoingofdoingseriousbodilyharmto othersorthosehazardoustoinstitutionalsecurityorpersonal safety,toincludethatofacellphone.Firstandforemost,a cellphoneunlessusedadetonationdevicecannotbeseenas threattopersonalorinstitutionalsafety.Atbestthisalleged violationshouldhavebeenchargedasaCode305,Possession ofanythingnotauthorizedforretentionorreceiptbytheinmate, notissuedtothroughregularchannels.However,giventhefact thatthePlaintiff/Appellantwasonhomeconfinement,eventhis chargewouldnotbeaperfectfitgiventhefactthatthoseon homeconfinementareaffordedadditionalrightsandlibertiesas theyarenotsubjectto24hourmonitoringbyfacility. Ultimately,hischargesweretrumpeduptosuchthathewould

bechargedwithaviolationthatmightcausehisremovalfrom theprogramratherthanonethatismoreinlinewiththe Plaintiff/Appellantsallegedactionsthattookplacethatday. Giventheharmlessnatureofacellphone,anditsinabilityto enableaninmatetoescapefromacorrectionalfacility,asatool usedforseriousbodilyharm,itisclearthatthereissome underlyingmaliciousintentbehindtheuseofthisviolationcode asopposedtoonethatwasmoreappropriate. Wethereforearguethatthetrialcourterredinfailingtodenythe AppelleesMotionforSummaryJudgment,andwouldhumblyrequestthat OrderGrantingsaidSummaryJudgmentoverturned.

Issue#2:WhetherthelowertribunalerredingrantingDefendants MotionforSummaryJudgment,byoverlookingPlaintiffs/Appellants claimsforFalseArrestandImprisonment? Thetortoffalseimprisonmentorfalsearrestcontainsthefollowingelements: TheRestatement(2nd)ofTorts,31,reads:Anactorissubjectto liabilitytoanotherforfalseimprisonmentif: (a)heactsintendingtoconfinetheotherorathirdpersonwithin boundariesfixedbytheactor,and

(b)hisactdirectlyorindirectlyresultsinsuchaconfinementofthe other,and (c)theotherisconsciousoftheconfinementorisharmedbyit. Falseimprisonmenthasfourelements:

1. 2.

intent, actualconfinementinboundariesnotoftheplaintiff's

choosing,
3. 4.

acausallink,and Awarenessoftheconfinement.

TheDefendant/Appelleeearguedthatonewhoisimprisonedcouldntbe falselyarrested,andfurthermorethatitwastheUSMarshalsatthedirection oftheFederalBureauofPrisons.However,itwasthedirectandindirect actionsoftheDefendantthatleadtotheconfinementofthe Plaintiff/Appellant.Although,theDefendantwasnottheonethatphysically placedthePlaintiff/Appellantinspecificconfinedareaandheldhimagainst hiswill,theiractswerethecausalactthatleadtothePlaintiff/Appellantbeing placedinprison.Causationis,ofcourse,arequiredelementofafalse imprisonment.SeeOviattv.Pearce,954F.2d1470,1474(9thCir.1992).A

probation/paroleofficerneednotactuallyuseforcetodetaina probation/paroleeillegally.Althoughfalseimprisonmentusuallyfollowsfalse arrest,falseimprisonmentmaytakeplaceevenafteravalidarrest. However,apoliceofficermaybeheldtohaveinitiatedacriminal proceedingifheknowinglyprovidedfalseinformationtotheprosecutoror otherwiseinterferedwiththeprosecutorsinformeddiscretion.See,Reed, 77F.3dat1054Torres,966F.Supp.at1365.Insuchcases,anintelligent exerciseofthe...[prosecutors]discretionbecomesimpossible,anda prosecutionbasedonthefalseinformationisdeemedprocuredbythe persongivingthefalseinformation.However,aprivatecitizenmaybeheld liableforfalsearrestunder1983ifheorshecausedtheplaintifftobe arrestedbyvirtueoffalsestatementsheorshemadetothepolice.Dobyv. DeCrescenzo,1996U.S.Dist.LEXIS13175,*40(E.D.Pa.Sept.9,1996) Wethereforearguethatthetrialcourterredinfailingtodenythe AppelleesMotionforSummaryJudgment,andwouldhumblyrequestthat OrderGrantingsaidSummaryJudgmentoverturned. Issue#3:WhetherthelowertribunalerredingrantingDefendants MotionforSummaryJudgment,byoverlookingPlaintiffs/Appellants claimsforAssaultandBattery? TheDefendants/Appelleemakedtheclaimthattheyareentitledto

summaryjudgmentasthePlaintiffhasnotprovidedanyfactstosupport allegationsofassaultandbattery.Itisclearthatnosuchrecordofthe assaultsandbatterythattookplaceastheDefendantsrefusedtoprovidethe Plaintiff/Appellantwithandmeansofdocumentingsaidactions.The proceduresestablishedbytheBureauofPrisonsrequirethatappealstothe GeneralCounselshallincludecopiesofFormsBP9,BP10,andtheir responses.BOPProgramStatement(P.S.)1330.7,p7(b).Theonly exceptiontothisrequirementiswheretheinmatehasnotyetreceiveda response.P.S.1330.7,p6(6).Youmustuseupalladministrativesolutions beforesuinginfederalcourt.Itwouldbeananomalousresult,indeed,if prisonofficialscouldforecloseprisoninmatesfromfilingcivilrightslawsuits infederalcourtsimplybydeprivingthemofthemeanstofulfillamandatory prerequisitetodoingso,Chathamv.Adcock,(N.D.Ga.Sept.28,2007). Allenv.McMorris,No.4:06cv810SNL,2007WL172564,at*2(E.D.Mo. Jan.19,2007)(unpublished)(holdingallegationthatprisonercouldnotget grievancepolicyorformsbarredsummaryjudgmentfordefendants). AnnaGispertsadmissionofnothavingprovidedBP9formsto Plaintiff/Appellant,providesthePlaintiff/Appellantnomeansofdocumenting theabusesofprocess,abusesofConstitutionalrightsandcivillibertieson

thepartoftheDefendants,andevengoestotheextentofprovidingthe Plaintiff/Appellantverylittlematerialdocumentationofhisexperiencesatthe halfwayhouse(Exhibit#5tothismotion).However,itwastheirintentionall alongtodenythePlaintiff/Appellantanopportunitytoeverhavealegitimate opportunitytodefendhimselfbothintheirnonexistentinhousejudiciary proceedings,whenhefacedtheFederalBureauofPrisonspriortobeingsent backtoprison,andcurrentlyinhiscivilactionagainsttheDefendants. Enigwev.Zenk,No.03CV854(CBA),2006WL2654985,at*4(E.D.N.Y. Sept.15,2006)(unpublished)denyingsummaryjudgmenttodefendants whereplaintiffassertedhisrepeatedeffortstoobtainformswerefruitless. Wethereforearguethatthetrialcourterredinfailingtodenythe AppelleesMotionforSummaryJudgment,andwouldhumblyrequestthat OrderGrantingsaidSummaryJudgmentoverturned. Issue#4:WhetherthelowertribunalerredingrantingDefendants MotionforSummaryJudgment,byoverlookingPlaintiffs/Appellants claimsforMaliciousProsecution? TheDefendantsarguedthatsincethePlaintiff/Appellanthasnot, andcannotestablishtheelementsofmaliciousprosecution,especially thekeyelementsofthecommencementofjudicialproceedingonthe plaintiff,bythedefendantandterminationoftheinfavorofthe

Plaintiff,thattheDefendantsshouldhavebeenawardedsummary judgment. Thecommonlawtortofmaliciousprosecutionoriginatedasaremedy foranindividualwhohadbeensubjectedtoamaliciouslyinstitutedcriminal charge.Allfederalclaimsformaliciousprosecutionareborrowedfromthe commonlawtort...[which]imposesliabilityonaprivatepersonwho institutescriminalproceedingsagainstaninnocentpersonwithoutprobable causeforanimproperpurpose.Thefederalclaimunder[42U.S.C.]section 1983formaliciousprosecutiondiffersfromthestatecivilsuitinthatit requiresthatstateofficialsacting'undercoloroflaw'institutethecriminal proceedingsagainsttheplaintiffandtherebydeprivehimofrightssecured undertheConstitution."Torresv.SuperintendentofPolice,893F.2d404, 409(1stCir.1990). YetagaintocombattheDefendants/Appelleesclaimthattheydidnot initiateprosecutionagainstthePlaintiff,itisundeniablethattheUSMarshalls, andDivisionofCorrectionswouldnothaveevenbeenawareofanysortof allegedviolation,haditnotbeenfortherequestthatweremadebythe Defendants.Yetagain,itwasthedirectandindirectactionsofthe Defendant,whichleadtotheprosecution,andsubsequentconfinementofthe

Plaintiff/Appellant.Section28(5)(c)statesthatissuepreclusiondoesnot applyifthepartysoughttobeprecluded,asaresultoftheconductofhis adversaryorotherspecialcircumstances,didnothaveanadequate opportunityorincentivetoobtainafullandfairadjudicationintheinitial action.Specifically,therearevariousfactorswhichshouldenterintoa determinationwhetherapartyhashadhisdayincourt[including]such considerationsas...theavailabilityofnewevidence...Schwartzv.Public Adm'rofBronxCounty,24N.Y.2d65,298N.Y.S.2d955,961,246N.E.2d 725,729(1969). TwoaspectsoftheDannerspreliminaryhearingdemonstratesthat theywerenotaffordedafullandfairopportunitytolitigatewhetherprobable causeexistedfortheirarrest.First,thedeterminationofprobablecausewas basedonthefalsetestimonyofDawnFarrisatpreliminaryhearing.Attrial sherecantedvirtuallyallthekeyaccusationsnecessarytoconcludethata crimehadoccurredandthattheDannerswerelikelytohavecommittedit. Second,therewerekeyfactsthatwerenotandcouldnothavebeen discoveredbeforethepreliminaryhearingdespitethedistrictattorney'sopen filepolicy.Untilcrossexaminationoftheothersalesclerkatpreliminary hearing,nooneknewthatacustomer,MelodyWinn,hadbeenpresentwhen

theallegedthefttookplace.Norwasitknownthattheprecisetimeofthe allegedthefthadbeenrecordedbythestore'scashregisteronthecustomer's check.Winn'stestimonyattrial,thatshehadseennothingoutoftheordinary duringherpurchase,waskeytotheDannersdefenseandtothenotguilty verdict. AnnaGispertsadmissionofnothavingprovidedBP9formsto Plaintiff/Appellant,providesthePlaintiff/Appellantnomeansofdocumenting theabusesofprocess,abusesofConstitutionalrightsandcivillibertieson thepartoftheDefendants,andevengoestotheextentofprovidingthe Plaintiff/Appellantverylittlematerialdocumentationofhisexperiencesatthe halfwayhouse.Although,"Maliciousprosecutiondoesnotperseabridge rightssecuredbytheConstitution."Moralesv.Ramirez,906F.2d784,788 (1stCir.1990).Inarticulatingtheelementsofamaliciousprosecutionclaim under42U.S.C.Sec.1983,wehaveheldthat"thecomplaintmustassertthat themaliciousconductwassoegregiousthatitviolatedsubstantiveor proceduraldueprocessrightsundertheFourteenthAmendment."Torres, 893F.2dat409."[F]orsubstantivedueprocesspurposes,thealleged maliciousprosecutionmustbeconscienceshocking."Id.at410."For proceduraldueprocesspurposes...theplaintiffusuallymustshowthe

allegedconductdeprivedhimoflibertybyadistortionandcorruptionofthe processesoflaw,i.e.,corruptionofwitnesses,falsificationofevidence,or someotheregregiousconductresultinginthedenialofafairtrial....In addition,theplaintiffmustshowtherewasnoadequatestatepostdeprivation remedyavailabletorectifytheharm. GiventhefactthatthePlaintiff/Appellantwassubjecttopoliciesand proceduresofthebothDismasHouseCharitiesCorrectionalprocedures, andhadanobligationtoexhaustalladministrativeproceduresavailableto him,andmoreimportantlythathewasnotgiventheopportunitytodoso,it shouldbecleartothiscourtthatconscienceshockingelementofproving maliciousprosecutionhasbeenmet.Firstandforemost,theDefendants actionsdeniedthePlaintiff/Appellanttheabilitytoshowthehowalleged conductdeprivedhimofliberty,byadistortionandcorruptionofthe processesoflaw,i.e.,falsificationofevidence,andotheregregiousconduct namelythedenialofdocumentsnecessarytoensuringdueprocess,resulting ultimatelyinthedenialofafairtrialPlaintiff/Appellant. Wethereforearguethatthetrialcourterredinfailingtodenythe AppelleesMotionforSummaryJudgment,andwouldhumblyrequestthat OrderGrantingsaidSummaryJudgmentoverturned.

Issue#5:WhetherthelowertribunalerredingrantingDefendants MotionforSummaryJudgment,byoverlookingPlaintiffs/Appellants claimsforNegligenceandGrossNegligence? ThePlaintiff/Appellantprovidedtheappropriatestaffmembersofthe halfwayhousewithcopiesofallmedicalrecordsindicatingtheseverityofhis medicalconditionsandanydoctorrecommendationsconcerningprogram requirementsformanuallaborandworkoutsideofthefacility.Duringhis residencyatDismasHouse,thePlaintiff/Appellantwasconstantlyterrorized, intimidated,andhumiliatedwithoutanyregardforhismedicalconditionsor hisdignity,inthathewasforcedtodocleaningjobswheninfactinviolation ofhisdoctorsorders,evengoingasfarastopreventhismedicaltreatment, addinginsulttoinjury.Furthermore,hewasnotprovidedmealsthatwere diabeticfriendly,andwasgivendisciplinaryactionforincidentwhereiswife wasdeliveringfoodasaresultofhimnotreceivingadequatenutritionfrom thehalfwayhouse.ThisviolatesDepartmentofCorrectionPoliciesin which,itismandatedthateachinstitutionsfoodserviceprogramoffers nutritionallybalanced,appetizingmeals.SpecialFoodandMeals,28C.F.R. 547.20andProgramStatement4700.05,FoodServicesManual,provide thatmedicaldietsbeavailabletoinmateswhorequiresuchdiets.Inaddition, inmateswithreligiousdietaryrequirementsmayapplyforthereligiousdiet

program,designedtoaddressthedietaryrestrictionsofavarietyofdifferent religions.SeeProgramStatement5360.09,ReligiousBeliefsandPractices. ThePlaintiff/Appellantsresearchhasfoundhoweverthat,a prisonofficialviolatesaprisoner'sEighthAmendmentrights,andis deemednegligentifhe/sheisdeliberatelyindifferenttotheprisoner's seriousmedicalneeds.SeeEstellev.Gamble,429U.S.97,10304,97 S.Ct.285,50L.Ed.2d251(1976).Deliberateindifference encompassesonlyunnecessaryandwantoninflictionofpainrepugnant totheconscienceofmankind.Seeid.at10406,97S.Ct.285. "Subjectiverecklessness,"asusedinthecriminallaw,isthe appropriatetestfordeliberateindifference.Toincurliabilityunder 1983,anindividualmustbepersonallyinvolvedinthedeprivationofa person'sconstitutionalrights.SeeLozanov.Smith,718F.2d756,768 (5thCir.1983)

InanalyzingclaimsofEighthAmendmentviolations,thecourtsmust lookatdiscreteareasofbasichumanneeds.Aswehaverecentlyheld," '(A)ninstitution'sobligationundertheeighthamendmentisatanendifit furnishessentencedprisonerswithadequatefood,clothing,shelter,

sanitation,medicalcare,andpersonalsafety.'"Wrightv.Rushen,642F.2d 1129,113233(9thCir.1981)(citationomitted).682F.2dat124647."Ina negligencecase,neithertheissueofproximatecausenorthesovereign immunitydefensesbecomegermaneuntilithasbeenestablishedthata defendantowestoaplaintiffadutyofcarethathasbeenbreached."Foxv. Custis,372S.E.2d373,375(Va.1988).However,inEstateofMathesv. Ireland,419N.E.2d782,784(Ind.Ct.App.1981),thecourtheldthatunder 319,[f]orthedutytoexisttheremustthereforenotonlybeanactual takingchargeofthethirdperson,theremustalsobeaknowledgeofthe likelihoodthathewillcausebodilyharm.TheDefendantscannotmakethe claimthattheywereunawareofthePlaintiff/Appellantsmedicalconditionas theywereprovidedallofhismedicaldocumentation,andmoreover,theyare unabletoskatearoundtheirdutytoexercisecareforthePlaintiff/Appellants wellbeing,inthattheyareobligatedbyDepartmentofCorrectionsstandards, humanrightsstandardsaswellasconstitutionalstandards. Wethereforearguethatthetrialcourterredinfailingtodenythe AppelleesMotionforSummaryJudgment,andwouldhumblyrequestthat OrderGrantingsaidSummaryJudgmentoverturned. Issue#6:WhetherthelowertribunalerredingrantingDefendants MotionforSummaryJudgment,byoverlookingPlaintiffs/Appellants

claimsforviolationofhisFirstAmendmentRights? FirstAmendmentCongressshallmakenolawrespectingan establishmentofreligion,orprohibitingthefreeexercisethereofor abridgingthefreedomofspeech,orofthepressortherightofthe peoplepeaceablytoassemble,andtopetitiontheGovernmentfora redressofgrievances.TheDefendantmakestheclaimthataccording toFederalBureauofPrisonguidelines,thePlaintiff/Appellantwasnot allowedtoattendachurchoutsideof5milesfromthefacility. HoweverinDismascharitiesanddivisionofPrisonGuidelinesstate explicitlythat,Youwillbeabletoattendweeklychurchservices,as approvedbyyourCounselor,maximumofthreehoursperweek, includingtravel.Churchmustbewithin(5)milesofthefacility. (ChurchBulletinandcompletedChurchReportFormmustbe provideduponyourreturnbackfromthefacility)Note:Exceptionsto the(5)milerulewillonlybemadewhenyourstateddenominationof worshipcannotbelocatedwithinfivemilesoftheprogram.Keeping thisexceptioninmind,andevenwiththePlaintiff/Appellantmakingan opendeclarationofhisreligionofchoicebeingGreekOrthodox,and furthermakingthecasethattheclosestchurchis9.5milesaway,the

DefendantsdeniedthePlaintiff/Appellantsrequesttoattendhis churchservices.ThePlaintiff/Appellantsresearchhasshownsuch guidelinesdonotexistandtheFederalGovernmentremainsneutral regardingreligiouspracticeordistancestoandfromareligious institutionatahalfwayhouse,thusconstitutingaviolationofthe Plaintiff/Appellantsrightstoreligiousfreedomandthefreeexercise thereof,andfurtherviolatingtheUnitedStatesstanceonseparationof churchandstate. Wethereforearguethatthetrialcourterredinfailingtodenythe AppelleesMotionforSummaryJudgment,andwouldhumblyrequestthat OrderGrantingsaidSummaryJudgmentoverturned. Issue#7:WhetherthelowertribunalerredingrantingDefendants MotionforSummaryJudgment,byoverlookingPlaintiffs/Appellants claimsforviolationofhisFourthAmendmentRights? FourthAmendmentTherightofthepeopletobesecurein theirpersons,houses,papers,andeffects,againstunreasonable searchesandseizures,shallnotbeviolated,andnoWarrantsshall issue,butuponprobablecause,supportedbyOathoraffirmation,and particularlydescribingtheplacetobesearched,andthepersonsor thingstobeseized.

AnillegalsearchwasconductedofthevehiclethatPlaintiff/Appellant droveandpropertywasremovedfromthevehiclewithoutthe knowledgeofthePlaintiff/AppellantandwithoutthePlaintiff/Appellant beingpresentatthesearch.Defendantsassertedthatacellular telephone,aphonechargerandapacketofcigaretteswerefoundin theglovecompartmentofthecarandconfiscated.Dataandevidence fromthesurveillancecamerasthatcontainedinformationregardingthe illegalsearchandseizure,wasdeliberatelydestroyedbythe Defendants.Havingacellulartelephoneinthecar,doesnotrepresenta violationforprisonersonhomeconfinementashalfwayhouserules andregulationsarenotthesameashomeconfinementrulesand regulations.Plaintiff/Appellantdoesnotsmoke,andoperatingamotor vehiclewithoutpriorapprovalrepresentsaminorviolation,anddoes notrequireincarceration. "Whentheprosecutionseekstojustifyawarrantlesssearchby proofofvoluntaryconsent,itisnotlimitedtoproofthatconsentwas givenbythedefendant,butmayshowthatthepermissiontosearch wasobtainedfromathirdpartywhopossessedcommonauthority overorothersufficientrelationshiptothepremisesoreffectssought

tobeinspected.'UnitedStatesv.Matlock,415U.S.164,171(1974).

TheFourthandFourteenthAmendmentsrequirethataconsentnotbe coerced,byexplicitorimplicitmeans,byimpliedthreatorcovert force.For,nomatterhowsubtlythecoercionwasapplied,the resulting'consent'wouldbenomorethanapretextfortheunjustified policeintrusionagainstwhichtheFourthAmendmentisdirected.' Schnecklothv.Bustamonte,412U.S.218(93SC2041,2048,36 LE2d854)(1973)]."UnitedStatesv.Smith,395FSupp.1155, 115657(W.D.N.Y.1975).Itismypositionthatadefendant's submissiontowarrantlesssearchesandseizuresshouldnotbethe priceofprobation. Whileaprobationer'srightofprivacymaybejustifiably diminishedduringtheperiodofprobation(seeInmanv.State,124 Ga.App.190(2)(183SE2d413)(1971)),"[p]robationarystatus doesnotconvertaprobationer'sfamily,relativesandfriendsinto 'secondclass'citizens....Thesepeoplearenotstrippedoftheirright ofprivacybecausetheymaybelivingwithaprobationeror[s]hemay belivingwiththem."Statev.Fogarty,supraat151.TheSupreme

CourtofMontana,theonlycourtinthecountrytoaddressthe ramificationsofthewarrantlesssearchconditionofprobationonthird partieslivingwithaprobationer,concludedthatasearchwarrantbased onprobablecausemustbeobtainedbeforeaprobationer'sresidence maybesearched"sothatthelegalinterestsofinnocentthirdpersons canbeadequatelyprotected...." Wethereforearguethatthetrialcourterredinfailingtodenythe AppelleesMotionforSummaryJudgment,andwouldhumblyrequestthat OrderGrantingsaidSummaryJudgmentoverturned. Issue#8:WhetherthelowertribunalerredingrantingDefendants MotionforSummaryJudgment,byoverlookingPlaintiffs/Appellants claimsforviolationofhisFifthandFourteenthAmendmentRights? 5thAmendmentNopersonshallbeheldtoanswerfora capital,orotherwiseinfamouscrime,unlessonapresentmentor indictmentofaGrandJury,exceptincasesarisinginthelandornaval forces,orintheMilitia,wheninactualserviceintimeofWarorpublic dangernorshallanypersonbesubjectforthesameoffencetobe twiceputinjeopardyoflifeorlimbnorshallbecompelledinany criminalcasetobeawitnessagainsthimself,norbedeprivedoflife, liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocessoflawnorshallprivate

propertybetakenforpublicuse,withoutjustcompensation. TheDoubleJeopardyClauseincludesthreedistinct constitutionalguarantees:(1)protectionagainstasecondprosecution forthesameoffenseafteranacquittal(2)protectionagainstasecond prosecutionforthesameoffenseafteraconvictionand(3)protection againstmultiplepunishmentsforthesameoffense. Asaresultoftheallegedviolation,thePlaintiff/Appellantwas giventhreeseparateviolations,ondifferentdates,forthesameincident thatoccurredinthesameday,timeandplace,withoutDueProcessof Law.Notallcopiesofthethreewrittenviolationswerereleasedas requestedbythediscovery.OnOctober20,2010,at6:30A.M., whilesleepinginhisbedatDismasHouse,thePlaintiff/Appellantwas arrestedbytwoU.S.MarshallagentsandtransportedtoF.D.C. Miami,withoutanychargesleviedagainsthimandwithoutDue ProcessLaw.OnOctober20,2010,at6:30A.M.,whilesleepingin hisbedatDismasHouse,thePlaintiff/Appellantwasarrestedbytwo U.S.MarshallagentsandtransportedtoF.D.C.Miami,withoutany chargesleviedagainsthimandwithoutDueProcessLaw.The incarcerationwasdonewithouttheknowledgeofUSPOandCCM

Director,CarlosRodriguez,ashedidnotsignthepapersforthe incarceration,thusmakingitclearthattheDefendantsengagedina campaignoferasingevidenceandfabricatingdocumentsinorderto coverupanysuspicionoftheevents.ThePlaintiff/Appellantin additiontosanctionslevieduponhimbythehalfwayhouse,hewas alsosentencedtoserviceanadditional81daysinfederalincarceration. FourteenthAmendmentSection1.Allpersonsbornor naturalizedintheUnitedStates,andsubjecttothejurisdictionthereof, arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandoftheStatewhereintheyreside. NoStateshallmakeorenforceanylawwhichshallabridgethe privilegesorimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStatesnorshallany Statedepriveanypersonoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdue processoflawnordenytoanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequal protectionofthelaws. InviolationofhisTitleVIIprotectionsand14thAmendment,the Plaintiff/Appellantwasdiscriminatedandharassedconstantly,bythe Defendants,becausehewasaforeigner,spokeEnglishwithanaccent, practicedGreekOrthodoxReligionandhewaswhite.Similarly situatedresidentsatDismashousewerenottreatedalike.

WemustagainemphasizethefactthatAnnaGispertsadmissionof nothavingprovidedBP9formstoPlaintiff/Appellant,providesthe Plaintiff/Appellantnomeansofdocumentingtheabusesofprocess,abuses ofConstitutionalrightsandcivillibertiesonthepartoftheDefendants,and evengoestotheextentofprovidingthePlaintiff/Appellantverylittlematerial documentationofhisexperiencesatthehalfwayhouse.The Plaintiff/Appellantagainassertsthat,itwastheirintentionallalongtodenythe Plaintiff/Appellantanopportunitytoeverhavealegitimateopportunityto defendhimselfbothintheirnonexistentinhousejudiciaryproceedings,when hefacedtheFederalBureauofPrisonspriortobeingsentbacktoprison, andcurrentlyinhiscivilactionagainsttheDefendants.Againwe,bringthe courtsattentiontoEnigwev.Zenk,No.03CV854(CBA),2006WL 2654985,at*4(E.D.N.Y.Sept.15,2006)(unpublished)denyingsummary judgmenttodefendantswhereplaintiffassertedhisrepeatedeffortstoobtain formswerefruitless. Wethereforearguethatthetrialcourterredinfailingtodenythe AppelleesMotionforSummaryJudgment,andwouldhumblyrequestthat OrderGrantingsaidSummaryJudgmentoverturned.
Issue#9:WhetherthelowertribunalerredingrantingDefendants

MotionforSummaryJudgment,byoverlookingPlaintiffs/Appellants

claimsforviolationofhisFifthandFourteenthAmendmentRights? EighthAmendmentExcessivebailshallnotberequired,nor excessivefinesimposed,norcruelandunusualpunishments inflicted.Tostateaclaimunder28U.S.C.1983,aplaintiffmust allegefactstendingtoshowthat:(1)hehasbeendeprivedofaright securedbytheConstitutionorfederallaw,and(2)thedeprivationwas causedbyapersonorpersonsactingundercolorofstatelaw.See FlaggBros.,Inc.v.Brooks,436U.S.149,155,98S.Ct.1729,56 L.Ed.2d185(1978).TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasheldthat whereaprivatepartyhasexercisedpowersthatare"traditionallythe exclusiveprerogativeofthestate,"theprivatepartymaybeconsidered astateactorunder1983.RendellBakerv.Kohn,457U.S.830,842, 102S.Ct.2764,73L.Ed.2d418(1982).Concludingthatthe maintenanceofaprisonsystemhas"traditionally[been]theexclusive prerogativeofthestate,"courtshaveheldthatwhenastatecontracts withaprivatecorporationtorunitsprisons,theprivateprison employeesbecomesubjectto1983suits.SeeSkeltonv.PriCor, Inc.,963F.2d100,102(6thCir.),cert.denied,503U.S.989,112 S.Ct.1682,118L.Ed.2d398(1992)seealsoLemoinev.New

HorizonsRanch&Ctr.,990F.Supp.498,502(N.D.Tex.1998)(private employeesofresidentialtreatmentcenterlicensedbyStateofTexas subjectto1983suits). Again,asnotedinourdiscussionoftheDefendantsinstances ofblatantnegligence,thePlaintiff/Appellantprovidedtheappropriate staffmembersofthehalfwayhousewithcopiesofallmedicalrecords indicatingtheseverityofhismedicalconditionsandanydoctor recommendationsconcerningprogramrequirementsformanuallabor andworkoutsideofthefacility.DuringhisresidencyatDismas House,thePlaintiff/Appellantwasconstantlyterrorized,intimidated, andhumiliatedwithoutanyregardforhismedicalconditionsorhis dignity,inthathewasforcedtodocleaningjobswheninfactin violationofhisdoctorsorders,evengoingasfarastopreventhis medicaltreatment,addinginsulttoinjury.Furthermore,hewasnot providedmealsthatwerediabeticfriendly,andwasgivendisciplinary actionforincidentwhereiswifewasdeliveringfoodasaresultofhim notreceivingaddicaquatenutritionfromthehalfwayhouse.When asked,whoshouldhavethelastsayonthismatter,thedoctororthe federalprison'',DerekThomasanswered,Wehavealreadyhadthis

conversation.HeretheBureauofprisonrulesandnotthedoctor. InanalyzingclaimsofEighthAmendmentviolations,thecourts mustlookatdiscreteareasofbasichumanneeds.Aswehaverecently held,"'(A)ninstitution'sobligationundertheeighthamendmentisat anendifitfurnishessentencedprisonerswithadequatefood,clothing, shelter,sanitation,medicalcare,andpersonalsafety.'"Wrightv. Rushen,642F.2d1129,113233(9thCir.1981)(citationomitted).682 F.2dat124647.

AccordinglythePlaintiff/Appellantshouldbeawardedsummary judgment.

Conclusion Thetrialcourtmisappliedthelawandcommittedreversibleerrorsby GrantingtheAppelleesMotionforSummaryJudgmentwithoutaddressing thekeyfactorsaddressedintheaforementionedbrief.Wehumblyrequest thatOrderGrantingsaidSummaryJudgmentbeoverturned.

CertificateofService IHEREBYCERTIFYthatatrueandcorrectcopyoftheforegoingwas deliveredviaU.S.Mailtotheindividualsandentitieslistedbelowonthis _____dayofApril2013. ____________________________ __ Signature TraianBujduveanu ProSePlaintiff/Appellant 5601WestBrowardBoulevard Plantation,Florida33317 Phone:(954)6637768 DismasCharities,Inc. 141N.W.1StAvenue Dania,FL330042835

AnaGispert DismasCharities,Inc. 141N.W.1StAvenue Dania,FL330042835 DerekThomas DismasCharities,Inc. 141N.W.1StAvenue Dania,FL330042835 LashandaAdams DismasCharities,Inc. 141N.W.1StAvenue Dania,FL330042835 DavidS.ChaietEsquire AttorneyforDefendants 4000HollywoodBoulevard Suite265South Hollywood,FL33021