Plaintiff's response to defendant's motion for summary judgment,incoporated memorandum of law in...

IN TIIE UM TED STATES DISTRICT COIJRT FORTIIE SOUTIIERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1 I-ZOIZO-ClW SE1TZ/SIM ONTON

. > X2=V 7 * . . . '

t- q r.me r=.y : 'm +

L.

. '

) *'

k

74.' .

1.h .

: ,

'3 i . ' t . z f ' . r' ' r ''.w ?. ... k i' ... , .. t .. ;'; . . ' ) r i ' t ) : ...y î .. J'

J

'

' w..e $ ..> C t i:. l . . . l . p''''t T < $ J$ ! w. 'y t.v

:1

'Jr. t ) .# ' . t ' 7 % ' k % ''S L*%

L l-..- F'u ) 'A '.- 1. . . z . l . J 1 . w-s l . 'w i t. !îl ur

-.x

( i'J' 'f #'' ' &'. -*. F tf l Y !' W l 172%.. . Q.. . . s u.v . t r ; .t '$ ï . . t

.

j

T BUJDLFVEANU,

Plaintifll

VS.

Dlsm s CHARITIE ,s m c ,. ANA GISPERT,

DEREK THOM AS and LASHANDA Aoo SDefendants.

PLAN IFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S M OTION FOR SUM M ARY

JUDGEM ENX G CORPORATED G M ORANDIJM OF LAW IN SIJPPORT OF

M OTION FOR SUM M ARY JIJDGEG NT

PlaintiffTraian Bujduveanw Pro Se, hereafter known as tfMovanf', files this response tothe Defendant's M otion to for Sllmmary Judgmenta Incorporated M emorandum of Law in

Support of M otion for Sllmmary Judgment and states as follows:

Introduction

Defendnnt Dismas Charities, lnc., a non-protit comoration 501(c)(3) orgarlization, whooperates 28 halfway houses in 13 sGtes that conkacts 9om the U.S. Govemment, of which Co-

defendnnts Ana Gisperq Derek Tomas and Lashanda Adams are employees of Dismas Charities,

Inc., entered into the docket on 12/16/201 1 their Defendant's M otion to for Sllmmary Judgment,

lncorporated M emorandzlm of Law. ln said M emorandllm of law, they argue that M ovant'sComplaint contained, ::50 paragraphs of unsupported allegations, four alleged federal theories of

recovery, and six alleged state law theories of recoveY '. This response to the Defendnnt'sM otion to for Sllmmary Judgment, lncoporated M emorandllm of Law, will rebut the

Defendant's arguments, and will add clarity to the assertions originally made in the M ovant's

Complaint and M otions of Sllmmary Judgment to the Court.

Summao of Argument

On July, 28, 2010, with the approval of CCM Director Carlos Rodriguez the M ovant was

transfer from Colman Low Correctional Facitity to Dismas Charities, lnc. halfway house, locatedin Daniw Florida. As is noted above, Defendant Dismas Charities, lnc., is non-profit corporation

501(c)(3) orgnnization, who operates 28 halfway houses in 13 sutes that contract from the U.SGovernment, of which Co-defendants Ana Gispert, Derek Tomas and Lashanda Adams areemployees of Dismas Charities Incoporation. Dismas Charities hotlse has limited independent

Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2012 Page 1 of 53

disciplinary discretion, thus giving it discretion over minor of prohibited acts. Any seriottssanctions required approval of CCM , USPO and Commllnity Sanctions representatives.

Upon arlival at Dismas Charities facility, the M ovant sir ed received a packet conGining

the Dismas Halfway House Regulations, but l did not received a Dismas Charities Handbook, asthere were none available at the time of my arrival. lt is important to note that the DismasHalfway House Repzlations book is not the same as Handbook and does not contain the snmeinformation as it is only a cursory overview of the policies and procedures contained witbin the

handbook. M oreover, it is important to note that the handbook has been moditied a few timessince the M ovants second arrest and lawsuit. The M ovant provided the appropriate staff

members with copies of ltis driver license, driving history from the Division of M otor Vehicles

in Tallahassee, vehicle registrationo and valîd insurance, in compliance with the terms and

conditions necessary to oblin permission to operate a motor vehîcle dllring supervision. Be thatas it may, the reason for which the M ovant was not approved to drive

, as contended by theDefendnnts, is llnkmown even today.

Dllring his residency at Dismas House, the M ovant was constantly tenorized,

intimidated, and h'lmiliated without any regard for his medical conditions or llis dir ity, in that

he was forced to do cleaning jobs when in fact in violation of lzis doctor's orders, even going asfar as to prevent his medical treatment

, adding insult to injuly. W hen askeda tlwho should havethe last say on this matter, the doctor or the federal prison'' Derek Thomms answered

, CEW e havealready had this conversation. Here the Bureau of prison rules and not tbe doctor''. ln violationof his Title VII protections, the M ovant was discriminated and harassed constantly

, by theDefendants, because he was a foreigner, spoke English with an accent

, practiced Greek-Orthodox Religion, and is wltite. Similarly sitlznted residents at Dismas house were not treatedalike. The Defendants openly denied the M ovant's request to attend Religious Services at a

Romanian Orthodox chtlrch on Sundays, located 16 minutes by car (9.5 miles) from the DismasCharities halfway house, under the pretext of Federal Guidelines. 'Fhe Movant's research hasshown such gtzidelines do not exist and the Federal Government remains neutral regarding

religious practice or distlmces to and from a religious institution at a halfway house, thus

constituting a violation of the movants rights to religious freedom and the free exercise thereof,

and further violating the Urtited SGtes stance on separation of chlzrch and state.

On October l3, 2010, the M ovant drove his family vehicle to Dismas halfway house forhis bi-weekly report. An illegal search was conducted of the vellicle that M ovant drove and

property was removed 9om tbe vehicle without the knowledge of the M ovant and without theM ovant being present at the search. Defendants asserted that a cellular telephone, a phonecharger and a packet of cigarettes were folmd in the glove compartment of the car andconfiscated. Data and evidence 9om the surveillance cameras that conGined informationregarding the illegal search and seimzre, was deliberately destroyed by the Defendants

. Having acellular telephone in the car, does not represent a violation for prisoners on home confmement as

halfway house ntles and regulations are not the same as home confmement rtzles and regalations.M ovant does not smoke, and operating a motor vehicle without prior approval represents a minor

violatiow and does not require incarceration. As a result of this incident, the M ovant was giventhree separate violations, on difrerent dates, for the same incident that occurred in tbe same day

,

2


time and place, without Due Process of Law. Not a11 copies of the three written violations werereleased as requested by the discovery.

On October 20, 2010, at 6:30 A.M ., while sleeping in his bed at Dismas House, the

movant was arrested by two U.S. M arshall agentq and tansported to F.D.C. M inmi, without anycharges levied against bim and without Due Process of Law. The incarceration was donewitbout tbe knowledge of USPO and CCM Director

, Carlos Rodriguez, ms be did not sipz thepapers for the incarceration, thus mnking it clear that the Defendants engaged in a cnmpaign of

erasing evidence and fablicating docllments in order to cover up any sttspicion of the events.The Movant is aware that the following docllments have been fabricated (Movant's Exhibit,Documents #38, 4l, 53, 58, 60, 61, 66).Whi1e incarcerated at F.D.C. Miami, no charges wereever levied against the M ovant and no investigation of any kind was carried out against him . Nofederal employee of F.D.C. wanted to get involved with his case

, they were aware of the covertand illegal actions of the Defendant. Federal Department of Corrections M iami CotmselorPrice and Unit M anager Harrison, lmder the strict suggestions of the F.D.C. warden, attempted illa few instnnces to contact the oflice of CCM Director, Carlos Rodliguez

, to no avail. TheM ovant was released from F.D.C. M iami on Jaùuar

.y 03, 201 1.

ln an attempt to ensttre that the M ovant would not get any usable information in time toenable him to conduct any investigation on the backpound of the Defendants

, as well as the actscommitled by the Defendants, the Defendrmts have refused to comply with the discovery rtzles

,

in a clever way, making their own rttles in the absence of any court rtzling regarding the

discovery. No Dismas employees' backgrolmd or names that were aware of the incident, or

came to visit the movant at M inmi F.D.C. were ever revealed and the M ovant has not beenafforded the opportunity to interview or depose any of these people that hold very important

information in this case.

Direct Response to Defendant's Arzum ents and Citation to Authoritv

The Plaintiff cannot m aintain any cause of action against any Defendant.

Gtl'he Defendant's assert that because the Federal Bureau of Prisons, not the

Defendants, made the decision to retalrn the Plaintiff to prison to serve out the remainder

of ltis sentence. Accordingly, the Defendants are not liable for any alleged damages

sustained by the Plaintiff. As halfway house is a privilege of confinement, not a light, the

Plaintiff, who was still serving his felony sentence, cannot maintain a cause of action for

the loss of this privilege.'' The only wrong doing was failing to provide the M ovant a

BP-9 form .

Although it should be tbe Federal Bureau of Prisons which makes the

determination as to whether an inmate is returned to the prison to serve their sentence,

that determination is based on the information, investigation, and recommendation of the

individuals who have work for the halfway bouse, or in tbis case, the Defendants. Tbe

initial observation of an alleged violation, all subsequent reports of said violation, any in-

bolzse judiciary proceedings, as well as any fmal recommendations to the Federal Bureauof Prisons, surts within the confmes of the halY ay house

, and thus the Defendants


cannot separate themselves from their obligation to respect and uphold the M ovant's rightto due process and against malicious prosecution. The Defendants themselves failed to

follow their own guidelines i.n which within 24 hours of a siffmember becoming awareof inmate's alleged involvement in an incident, that staffmembers give notice of charges

by deliveting an incident report (Exhibit 1 to this motion). Moreover, within 3 work days9om the time the staffmember became aware of the inmate's involvement in the

incident, the M ovant should have received an initial hearing with the UDC or DHO

(Exhibit 1 to this motion). The incident report was not even delivered to the Movant untill 0/20/2010, the day before he was moved re-arrested by the US M arshals and retarned to

prison (Exhibit //2). The Defendant's attempt to shift the blame to the Federal Bureau ofPrisons is a Gctic which tnkes the focus of the issue at hand and the trtze olenders in civil

action, as the Federal Btlreau of Plisons was only simply performing theirjob withinformation that was fabricated by the Defendants, and acted lmder good faith that the

Defendants had respected the M ovant's lights and follow proper procedures and due

process tmder the nzles and procedures of both the halY ay house, and guidelines of theFederal Department of Corrections. lt is for this reason, that Movant has not included theFederal Bureau of Prisons as a direct party to this suit, but have placed the blnme

squarely on the biggest violators of llis Constitmional rights and civil liberties. AnnaGispert's admission of not having provided BP-9 forms to M ovant

, provides the M ovantno means of docllmenting the abuses of process, abuses of Constittztional rights and civil

liberties on the part of the Defendants, and even goes to the extent of providing the

M ovant very little material docklmentation of his experiences at the halfway house.However, it was their intention all along to deny the M ovant an opporttmity to ever have

a legitimate opporttmity to defend himself both in their nonexistent in-house judiciaryproceedings, when he faced the Federal Bttreau of Prisons prior to being sent back to

prison, and currently in his civil action against the Defendants.

The Cotuls on the other hand have seen being on parole or in halfway house as

being more than just a privilege. On the other hand, the Court has found protected libertyinterests after an inmate is released from instimtional confinement. ln M orrissey v.

Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), tbe Court recor ized a parolee's liberty interest inremaining conditionally free on parole: ''gH)e can be gainfully employed and is 9ee to bewith family and friends and to form the other endudng attachments of normal life. . . .

glCis condition is very different 9om that of confmement in a prison.'' 1d. at 482. Relyingon M orrissey, the Court in Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143 (1997), held that an inmateenrolled in Oklahoma's pre-parole progl'am also had a protected liberty interest entitlinghim to due process before he could be removed from the progrnm . n ere the pre-parolee

''was released from prison before tbe expH tion of lzis sentence. He kept his own

residence; he sought, obtained, and mainGined a job; and he lived a lîfe generally free oftbe incidents of imprisonment''

Accordingly the Movant should be awarded summary judgment.

2. The Plaintiffcannot maintai.n any cause of action for any tortious conductunder Florida Com mon Law against the defendants.

a. False Arrest and Imprisonment

The tort of false imprisonment or false arrest contains the following elements:


The Restatement (2nd) of Torts, j3 1, reads: An actor is subject to liability to another forfalse imprisonment if:

(a) he acts intending to conlne the other or a third person within bolmdnries flxed bythe actor, and

(b) llis act directly or indirectly results in such a confnement of the other, and(c) the other is conscious of the confmement or is harmed by it.

False imprisonment has four elements:

1 . intent,2. acmal confmement in boundaries not of the plainti/s choosing

,

3. a causal link, and4. Awareness of the confmement.

The Defendant argues that one who is imprisoned cnnnot be falsely m ested, and

furthennore that it was the US M arshals at the direction of the Federal Bureau of Pdsons.However, it was the direct and indirect actions of the Defendant which lead to the

confmement of the M ovant. Although, the Defendant was not the one that physicallyplaced the M ovant in specitk confmed area and held him against his will

, their acts werethe causal act that lead to the Movant being placed in prison. Causation is, of course, arequired element of a false imprisonment. See Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9thCir. 1992). A probation/ parole oflicer need not actually use force to detain aprobation/parolee illegally. Although false imprisonment usually follows false arrest

, falseimprisonment may take place even after a valid arrest.

However, a police oY cer may be held to have éfinitiated'' a criminal proceeding if heknowingly provided false information to the prosecutor or otherwise interfered with the

prosecutor's infonned discretion. See, Reed, 77 F.3d at 1054,. Torres, 966 F.supp. at 1365.In such cases, Ran intelligent exercise of the ... Eprosecutor's) discretion becomesimpossible,'' and a prosecution based on the false irtfonnation is deemed Gprocured by the

person giving the false information.'' However, a private citizen may be held liable for false

arrest under j 1983 if he or she caused the plaintiff to be anested by virtue of falsesGtements he or she made to the police. Doby v. Decrescenzo, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

13175, *40 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 1996)

Accordingly the Movant should be awarded sllmmary judo ent.

Assault and Battery

The Defendants makes the claim that they are entitled to slzmmary judgment asthe Plaintiffhas not provided any facts to support allegations of assault and battery. It isclear that no such record of the assaults and battery that took place as the Defendant's

refused to provide the M ovant with and means of docllmenting said actions. n eprocedures established by the Bureau of M sons require that appeals to the GeneralCotmsel shall include copies of Forms BP-9, BP-10

, and their responses. BOP Program

Statement (P.S.) 1330.7, p 7*). 'Fhe only exception to this requirement is where theinmate has not yet received a response. P.S. 1330.7, p 646). You must use up a11


adminiskative solutions before suing in federal court. lt would be an anomalous result,indeed, if plison ox cials could foreclose prison inmates 9om filing civil lights lawsuits

in federal court simply by depriving them of the mennq to fulfill a mandatory

prerequisite to doing so,'' Chathnm v. Adcock, (N.D. Ga. Sept. 28, 2007). Allen v.McMorris, No. 4:06-cv-810 SNL, 2007 W L 172564, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 19, 2007)(tmpublished) molding allegation that prisoner could not get grievance policy or formsbarred summaryjudgment for defendantsl;

Anna Gispert's admission of not having provided BP-9 forms to M ovant, provides

the M ovant no means of docllmenting the abuses of process, abuses of Constitutionalrights and civil liberties on the part of the Defendnnts, and even goes to the extent ofproviding the M ovant very little material documentation of his experiences at the halfway

holzse (Exhibit #5 to this motion). However, it was their intention all along to deny theM ovant an opporhtnity to ever have a legitimate opportunity to defend himself both in

their nonexistent in-house judiciary proceedings, when he faced the Federal Bureau ofPrisons plior to being sent back to prison, and currently in his civil action against the

Defendnnts. Enigwe v. Zenk, No. 03-CV-854 (CBA), 2006 WL 2654985, at *4(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2006) (tmpublished) Ktdenying sllmmary judgment to defendantswhere plaintif asserted ltis repeated efrorts to obtain forms were fruitless''.

Accordingly the Movant should be awarded sllmmary judgment.

b. M alicious Prosecution

'T'he Defendants go on to argue that since the M ovant has not, and cnnnot establish the

elements of malicious prosecution, especially the key elements of the commencement

of judicial proceeding on the plaintifr, by tbe defendnnt and termination of the infavor of the Plaintiff, that the Defendants must be awarded sllmmary judo ent.

The common 1aw tort of malicious prosecution originated as a remedy for an

individual who had been subjected to a maliciously instituted criminal charge.

E<All federal claims for malicious prosecution are borrowed from the common 1aw

tort ... gwhich) imposes liability on a private person who institutes criminalproceedings against an innocent person without probable cause for an improper

purpose. 'I'he federal claim under g42 U.S.C.) section 1983 for malicious prosecutiondiffers from the state civil stlit in that it requires that state oflcials acting 'under color

of law' instittzte the criminal proceedings against tbe plaintiff and thereby deprive him

of rights secured under the Constitution.'' Torres v. Superintendent of Police, 893

F.2d 404, 409 (1st CiT.1990).

Yet again to combat the Defendant's claim that they did not iniéate prosecution

against tbe Plaintiff, it is undeniable that the US M arshalls, 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 thedirect and indirect actions of the Defendant which lead to the prosecution and


subsequent confinement of the Movant. Section 28(5)(c) sGtes that issue preclusiondoes not apply if ttthe party sought to be precluded, as a result of the conduct of his

adversary or other special circllmqtances, did not have an adequate opporttmity or

incentive to obtain a full and fair adjudication in the initial action.'' Specitkally, thereare ttvarious factors which should enter into a determination whether a party has had

his day in court (including) such considemtions as ... the availability of newevidence..a'' Schwnrta v. Public Adm'r of Bronx County, 24 N.Y.2d 65, 298 N.Y.S.Zd

955, 961, 246 N.E.2d 725, 729 (1969).

Two aspects of the Danner's preliminary healing demonstrates that they were not

afforded a full and fair opporttlnity to litigate whether probable cause existed for their

arrest. First, the determination of probable cause was based on the false testimony ofDawn Farris at preliminazy hearing. At trial she recanted virtually all the key

accusations necessary to conclude that a crime had occurred and that the Dannerswere likely to have committed it. Seconda there were key facts that were not and

could not have been discovered before the preliminary hearing despite the districtattorney's open file policy. Until cross examination of the other sales clerk at

preliminary hearing, no one knew that a cttstomer, M elody W irm, had been present

when the alleged theft took place. Nor was it known that tbe precise time of thealleged theft had been recorded by the store's cash register on the customer's check.

W inn's testimony at trial, that she had seen nothing out of the ordinary during herpurchase, was key to the Dnnner's defense and to the not- guilty verdict.

Anna Gispert's admission of not having provided BP-9 forms to M ovant, providesthe M ovant no means of docllmenting the abuses of process, abuses of Constitutionallights and civil liberties on the part of the Defendants

, and even goes to the extent ofproviding the M ovant very little material docllmentation of llis experiences at thehalfway house. Although, ''M alicious prosecution does not per se abridge rights

secured by the Constitution.'' M orales v. Rsmirez, 906 F.2d 784, 788 (1st Cir.1990).

ln articulating the elcments of a malicious prosecution clahn under 42 U .S.C. Sec.1983, we have held that ''the complaint must assert that the malicious conduct was so

egregious that it Wolated subslntive or procedural due process rights under the

Fourteenth Amendment.'' Torres, 893 F.2d at 409. ''Flor substantive due processpuposes, the alleged malicious prosecution must be conscience shocking.'' 1d. at 410.''For procedural due process pumoses ... the plaintiFusually must show the allegedconduct 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 tbe denial of a fair trial.... ln addition, the plaintifl-must show

there was no adequate state post deprivation remedy available to rectify the hnrm.

Given the fact that the Movant was subject to policies and procedures of the bothDismas House Chalities Correctional procedures, and had an obligation to exhaust al1

administrative procedures available to him, and more importantly that he was notgiven the opporttmity to do so, it should be clear to this court that ttconscience

shocking'' element of proving malicious prosecution has been met. First andforemost, tbe Defendants' actions denied the M ovant the ability to show the how


alleged conduct deprived him of liberty, by a distorlion and com zption of the

processes of law, i.e., falsification of evidence, and other egregiotts condud namelythe denial of documents necessary to enstlring due process, resulting ultimately in the

denial of a fair trial M ovant.

Accordingly the Movant should be awarded summary judn ent.

Abuse of Process

Abuse of process is a cause of action in tort arising 9om one party making a

malicious and deliberate misuse or perversion of regtllarly issued court process(civil or criminal) notjustified by the underlying legal actlon. Under W olff v.McDormell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), a prisonerfacing a disciplinary hearing that may result in the loss of a liberty interest must

receive ''(1) advance wlitten notice of tbe disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity,when consistent with instittztional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses

and to present documentary evidence i.n his defense; (3) a written statement by thefact fmder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.''

Superintendent, M assachusetts Correctional lnstittztion v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454,

105 S.Ct. 2768, 2773, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985), citing W olff, 418 U.S. at 563-67,94 S.Ct. at 2978. Even though Smith did not have a liberty interest in remnining at

Gardner, he was entitled to these procedural safeguards becatlse he risked the lossof liberty entailed in isolation time, a sanction which he ultimately received. See

Parenti v. Ponte, 727 F.2d 21, 25 (1st Cir.1984). The Defendants have anobligation to comply with a1l statutes, regulations and gtzidelines from theNational Archives and Records Administration. n e CCM offce based in M inmi

reports and abides by the nzles and regulations set by the Federal Bureau of

Prison. Accordingly, the CCM oo ce has to use proper Federal Forms each time aprisoner is concerned. All doctlments must be documented in the Sentry system

to be fully in compliance with al1 stattztes, regulations and gaidelines. The abuses

of process of are as follows:

1. No copies of the Transfer Orders (BP-S399.058) nor Transfer Reciept (BP-821.051) were ever provided to the Movant, because they did not and do not existto tllis day.

2. The transfer of a halfway house resident back to the Federal Prison it is NOT

done tlmz a M emorandllm. The US Federal Government requires that an

approved form (8P-5399.058) and (8P-821.05 1), is used for any action taken bya federal employee. ln this case, the request (MUST be placed in the SENTRY

SYSTEM to the US M arshal, and tben other Transfer and custody forms must bet'illed out with the appropriate dates and signatures, and a copy mtlst be given to

the tansferred inmate. This has not taken place because charges or investigations

against the M ovant, were never levied by the Federal Btlreau of Prisons. Titis was

a gross Fabrication with a premeditated cover-up. (Exbibit L, DE# 85-2).3. T'he Letter from Derek n omms to Carlos Rodrigues, wllich is a fabricated

docllment also, it has no date. W ithout a date, this letter is not an ox cial

8


docllment. Even more disttlrbing is the fact that Authority to transfer federal

inmates 9om non-federal facilities to federal inttzitions is delegated to CCM S.

(Exhibit L, DE# 85-2)4. The letter 9om Derek Thomas to o/ender Traian Bujduveanu, a fabricated

docllment, also does not have a date. (Exhibit L, DE# 85-2)5. The fabricated letter, allegedly written by Ana Gispert on October 20, 2010,

states that CEMr. Bujduveanu's adjus% ent to the program has been poor, aswimessed by llis inability to follow al1 of the rales and regulations set forth by

Dismas Charities and the Bttreau of Prisons.'' Yet al1 other docllments sGte that

he is cooperative and that he did all community transition cottrses, and that hewill no longer benefit from the halfway house. W hich leads the M ovant and the

court to question whether alleged minor violations of warrant such a drastic

change in opinion, and moreover, whether tlzis change in opinion was done as

matter of fact or simply to remove Movant from the facility.6. ln a letter from Ana Gispert to Bobbie Lowely, dated January 5, 201 1 she is

instracting him to make certified documents stating that they have atlempted torehu'n the property to the fnmily of the M ovant. At this time the property of the

M ovant is still in the Derek n omas' office and tmder his contol. She ispractically ins% ctirlg them to lie and make false documents, as my fnmily will

attest to the fact that they were never contacted to retrieve my property. (ExhibitL, DE# 85-2)The application of a violation Code 108 'Tossession, M anufacture, or

introduction of a hazardous tool (Tools most likely to be used in an escape orescape attempt or to serve as a weapon capable of doing of doing serious bodily

harm to others; or those hazardous to institutional sectu'ity or personal safet/', toinclude that of a cell phone. First and foremost, a cell phone llnless used adetonation device cnnnot be seen as threat to personal or institm ional safety. At

best this alleged violation should have been charged as a Code 305, GPossession

of anytlling not authorized for retention or receipt by the inmate, not issued tothrough regular channels. However, given the fact that the M ovant was on home

continement, even this charge would not be a perfect fit given the fact that those

on home confmement are afforded additional rights and liberties as they are not

subject to 24 hour monitoring by facility. Ultimately, llis charges were tnlmpedup to such that he would be charged with a violation that might catlse his removalfrom the progrnrn rather than one that is more in line with the M ovant's alleged

actions that took place that day. Given the hannless nature of a cell phone, andits inability to enable an inmate to escape 9om a correctional facility, as a tool

used for serious bodily hnrm, it is clear that there is some tmderlying maliciotts

intent behind the use of this violation code as opposed to one that wms more

appropriate. (Plaintiff's supplemental Exhibit #3, pp. 1, 17)

Accordingly the M ovant should be awarded summary judgment.

9


Negligence and Gross Negligence

The M ovant provided the appropriate staf members of the halfway holzsewith copies of a11 medical records indicating the severity of llis medical conditions

and any doctor recommendations concerning program requirements for manual labor

and work outside of the facility. Dllring his residency at Dismas Hottse, tbe M ovantwas constnntly terrorized, intimidated, and hzlm iliated without any regard for his

medical conditions or ilis digrlity, in that he was forced to do cleaning jobs when infact in violation of llis doctor's orders, even going as far as to prevent his medical

treatment, adding ingult to injury. Furthermore, he wms not provided meals that werediabetic friendly, and was given disciplinary action for incident where is wife was

delivering food as a result of him not receiving adequate nutrition from the halfwayholzse. This violates Depatlment of Correction Polîcies in which, it is mandated that

each institution's food service progrnm offers nutritionally balanceda appetizing

meals. Special Food and Meals, 28 C.F.R. j 547.20 and Program Statement 4700.05,. Food Services M anual, provide that medical diets be available to inmates who require

such diets. ln addition, inmates with religious dietary requirements may apply for thereligious diet program, desir ed to address the dietary restrictions of a variety of

different rehgions. See Program Statement 5360.09, Religious Beliefs and Practices.

'I'he Movant's research has found however that, a prison official violates a

prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights, and is deemed negligent if he/she is deliberately

indifferent to the prisoner's seriotls medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamb1e,429 U.S. 97,

103-04, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Deliberate indiflkrence encompassesonly llnnecessaly and wanton infliction of pain repugnant to the conscience of

mankind. See id.at 104-06, 97 S.Ct. 285. ''Subjective recklessness,'' as used in thecriminal law, is the appropriate test for deliberate indifference. To incttr liability

tmder j 1983, an individual must be personally involved in tbe deprivation of a

person's constitutional rights. See Lozxno v. 5* +,718 F.2d 756, 768 (5th C2.1983)

ln analyzing claims of Eighth Amendment violations, the courts must look at

discrete areas of basic htunan needs. As we have recently held, '' '(A)n institution'sobligation under the eighth nmendment is at an end if it furnishes sentenced prisonerswith adequate fooda clotbing, shelter, snnitation, medical care, and personal safety.'''

W right v. Rushen, * 2 F.2d 1129, 1 132-33 (9th Cir. lg8lltcitation omitted). 682 F.2dat 1246..47.''1n a negligence case, neither the issue of proximate cause nor the

sovereign immtmity defenses become germane until it has been established that a

defendant owes to a plaintiF a duty of care that has been breached.'' Fox v. Custis,

372 S.E.2d 373, 375 (Va. 1988). However, in Esote of M athes v. lrelando 419N.E.2d 782, 784 (lnd.Ct.App.1981), the court held that under j 319, ttlfjor the dutyto exist there must therefore not only be an actllnl tnking 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 that they were tmaware of the M ovmztsmedical condition as they were provided a1l of llis medical documentation, and

moreover, they are unable to skate around their duty to exercise care for the M ovants

wellbeing, in that they are obligated by DepaM ent of Corrections standards, human

rights standards as well as constitutional standards.

As a result of the aforementioned arguments the Movant deserves the court

granting his motion for summary judgment.

3. The Complaint fails to allege any tortious conduct or violations of Federal Law

or the Constitution.a. First Am endment Acongress shall make no law respecting an esublishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of

speech, or of the press', or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and topetition the Government for a redress of glievances.'' 'I'he Defendant makes the

claim that according to Federal Bureau of Prison guidelines, the M ovant was notallowed to attend a church outside of 5 miles 9om the facility. However in

Dismas charities and division of Prison Guidelines state explicitly that, tKYou will

be able to attend weekly church senrices, as approved by your Codlnqelor,

maxkmlm of tbree hours per weeko including travel. Church must be within (5)miles of the facility. (Church Bulletin and completed Chttrch Report Form mustbe provided upon yolzr retarn back from the facility) Note: Exceptions to the (5)mile rule will only be made when your stated denomination of worship cannot be

located within five miles of the program. Keeping this exception in mind, andeven with the M ovant making an open declaration of his religion of choice being

Greek Orthodox, and farther making the case that the closest church is 9.5 rniles

away, the Defendants denied the M ovant's request to attend his church services.

The M ovant's research has shown such guidelines do not exist and the FederalGovernment remains neutl'al regarding religious practice or distances to and from

a religious institm ion at a halfway holzse, tblzs constituting a violation of themovants rights to religious geedom and the free exercise thereof, and farther

violating the United States stance on separation of chlzrch and state. (Exhibit 4 to

this motion).Accordingly the M ovant should be awarded sllmrnar.y judgment.

b. Fourth Am endment-RThe right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses, papers, and effects, against llnreasonable searches and seiztzres, shall not

be violated, and no W arrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by

Oath or affrmation, and partictllarly describing tbe place to be searched, and the

persons or things to be seized.''

An illegal search was conducted of the vehicle that M ovant drove andproperty was removed 9om the vehicle without the G owledge of tbe M ovant and

without the M ovant being present at the search. Defendants asserted that a cellular

11


telephone, a phone charger and a packet of cigarettes were found in the glove

compartment of the car and contiscated. Data and evidence from the surveillance

cameras that contained information regarding the illegal search and seinlre, wasdeliberately desàoyed by the Defendants. Having a cellular telephone in the car,does not represent a violation for prisoners on home confmement as halfway

house rules and regulations are not the same as home confmement rules and

regulations. M ovant does not smoke, and operating a motor vehicle without prior

approval represents a minor violationo and does not require incarceration.

''When the prosecution seeks tojustify a warrantless search by proof ofvoluntary consent, it is not limited to proof that consent was given by the

defendact, but may show that the permission to search was obtained *om a thirdparty who possessed common authority over or other sttffcient relationship to the

premises or effects sought to be inspected.' United SGtes v. M atlock, 415 U. S.

164, l71 (1974).

The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments requle that a consent not be

coerced, by explicit or implicit means, by implied threat or covert force. For, no

matler how subtly tbe coercion was applied, the resulting 'consent' would be no

more than a pretext for tbe tmjustified police inmzsion against which the FourthAmendment is directed.' Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 (93 SC 204 1,2048, 36 LE2d 854) (1973)J.'' United States v. Smith, 395 Fsupp. 1 155, l 156-57(W .D.N.Y. 1975). lt is my position that a defendant's gubmission to wan-antlesssearches and seizares should not be the price of probation.

While a probationer's right of privacy may be justifiably diminisheddllring the period of probation (see Inman v. State, 124 Ga. App. 190 (2) (183SE2d 413) (1971.24, ''lplrobationary statkls does not convert a probationer's fnmily,relatives and friends into 'second class' citizens. . . . n ese people are not stripped

of their rigbt of privacy because tbey may be living with a probationer or gslhemay be living with them.'' Sute v. Fogarty, supra at 151. The Supreme Court of

M ontana, the only court in the country to address the ramiiications of thewarrantless search condition of probation on third parties living with a

probationer, concluded that a search warrant based on probable cause must beobGined before a probationer's residence may be searched ''so that the legal

interests of innocent third persons can be adequately protected. . . .''


c. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendmentstb çç N erson shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise5 Amendment- o p

infnmous crime, tmless on a presen% ent or indictment of a Grand Jury, except incases arising in tbe land or naval forces, or in the M iliua, when in actllnl service in

time of W ar or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offenceto be twice put i.n jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal

12


case to be a wimess against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,without due process of law; nor shall private property be fnken for public use,

withoutjlzst compensation.''

The Double Jeopardy Clause includes three distinct constitutional

guarantees: (1) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense

after an acquittal; (2) protection against a second prosecution for the same

ofrense after a conviction; and (3) protection against multiple pllnishments forthe same oFense.

As a result of the alleged violation, tbe M ovant was given three separate

violations, on dilerent dates, for the same incident that occurred in the same day,

time and place, without Dtze Process of Law. Not a1l copies of the three written

violations were released as requested by the discovely. On October 20, 2010, at

6:30 A.M ., while sleeping in his bed at Dismms House, the movant was arrested

by two U.S. M arshall agents and tzansported to F.D.C. M iami, without any

charges levied against him and without Due Process Law. On October 20, 2010,

at 6:30 A.M ., while sleeping in llis bed at Dismas House, the movant was

arrested by two U.S. M arshall agents and transported to F.D.C. M iami, without

any charges levied against him and without Dtze Process Law. The incarceration

was done without the knowledge of USPO and CCM Director, Carlos Rodriguez,

as he did not sign the papers for the incarceration, thus making it clear that the

Defendants engaged in a campaign of erasing evidence and fabricating docllments

in order to cover up any suspicion of tbe events. n e M ovant in addition to

sanctions levied upon hirn by the halfway house, he was also sentenced to service

an additional 8 l days in federal incarceration.


Fourteenth Am endment-ttsection 1. :tA11 persons bom or nataralized in the

United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the UnitedSGtes and of the Stnte wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any1aw which shall abridge tbe privileges or immllnities 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 equalprotection of the laws.''

th A dment the M ovantln violation of his Title W l protections and 14 men ,

was discriminated and harassed constantly, by the Defendants, because he was a

foreigner, spoke English with an accent, practiced Greek-orthodox Religion andhe was white. Similarly situated residents at Dismas house were not treated alike.


W e must again emphasize the fact that Anna Gispert's admission of not

having provided BP-9 formq to M ovant, provides the M ovant no means ofdocllmenting the abuses of process, abuses of Constimtional rights and civil

liberties on the part of the Defendants, and even goes to the extent of providingthe M ovant vely little material docllmentation of his experiences at the halfway

hotlse. The M ovant again asserts that, it was their intention al1 along to deny theM ovant an opportunity to ever have a legitimate opporttmity to defend himself

both in their nonexistent in-house judiciary proceedings, when he faced theFederal 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) (tmpublished) çtdenying summary judn ent to defendants whereplaintiff asserted his repeated eforts to obtain forms were fruitless''.

Accordingly the Movant should be awarded sllmmaryjudgment.

Eighth Amendment

t<Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fmes imposeda norcrtzel and urmsual pmishments inflicted.''

To state a claim tmder 28 U.S.C. j 1983, a plaintiffmust allege factstending to show that: (1) he has been deprived of a right secured by theConstitution or federal law, and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person orpersons acting tmder 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 SupremeCourt has 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 lmder j 1983. Rendell-Baker v. K01m,457 U.S. 830, 842,102 S.Ct. 2764, 73 L.Ed.2d 418 (1982). Concluding that the mnintenance of aplison system has ''traditionally gbeen) the exclusive prerogative of the state,''courts have held that when a sute contacts with a private corpomtion to ran its

prisons, tbe private prison employees become subject to j 1983 suits. See Skeltonv. Pri-cor, 1nc.,963 F.2d 100, l02 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 989, 1 12 S.Ct.1682, 1 18 L.Ed.2d 398 (1992),* see also Lemoine v. New Holizons Ranch &Ctr.,990 F.supp. 498, 502 @ .D.Tex.1998) (private employees of residentialtreatment center licensed by State of Texas subject to j 1983 suits).

Again, as noted in our discttssion of the Defendants' instances of blatantnegligence, the M ovant provided the appropriate staff members of the halfway

house with copies of al1 medical records indicating the severity of his medicalconditions and any doctor recommendations concerning progrnm requirementg for

manual labor and work outside of the facility. D'lring his residency at Dismas

House, the M ovant was constantly terrorized, intimidated, and hllmiliated withoutany regard for ltis medical conditions or his dignity, in that he was forced to do

cleaning jobs when in fact in violation of Ms doctor's orders, even going as far asto prevent his medical trea% ent, 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. W hen asked, Ktwho should havethe last say on tllis matter, the doctor or the federal prisonr', Derek Thomasansweredo <<W e have already had this conversation. Here the Bureau of plison

nzles and not the doctor''.

ln analyzing claims of Eighth Amendment violations, the courts must look

at discrete arems of basic hllman needs. As we have recently helda '' '(A)ninstitution's obligation tmder the eighth nmendment is at an end if it furnishes

sentenced prisoners with adequate food, clothing, shelter, saniotion, m edical care,

and personal safety.''' Wright v. Rlzshen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132-33 (9th Cir.lg8lltciGtion omitted). 682 F.2d at 1246..47.

Accordingly the Movant should be awarded sllmmaryjudo ent.

4. The Plaintiff has failed to appear for depositions, Defendants' designated facts

should be taken as established for purposes of this M otion for Summary

Judgmenh as the Defendants elaim and Plaintifrs pleadings should be stricken.

On December 06, 201 1 the Defendants fled a M otion to Dismiss Action for

Failttre to Appear at Deposition (Docllment #78). The Movant acknowledges that theDefendant's cotmsel attempted to schedule depositions on tbe following occasions;

October 10, 201 1, November 1 1 , 201 1, and December 5, 2011 (Composite Exhibit 1to Defendants motion). n e Movant fllrtber acknowledges that he tmderstnnds theimportance of said depositions for the publk's interest in expeditious resolution of

litigation, the court's need to manage its dockets. It is as a result of this understandingthat the M ovant made every atlempt to comrmlnicate via emails between the M ovant

and the Defendant's counsel as to his inability to make attend the depositions due tohis docllmented and court docketed illnesses. Furthermore, as evident in the back and

forth email correspondences, the Defendant's cotmsel made no request for cunent

medical docllments to justify the M ovant's assertion that he was unable to attend,which the M ovant would have been glad to provide, such that said docdlmentation

would result in either a rescheduling of the M ovant's deposition to a time that he wasphysically able to appear for his deposition, or such that other arrangements for

deposing the Movant could be reasonably made ie) via telephone or close circuittelevision. lt is not clear as to why the Defendant's cotmsel would question theM ovant's health as he was originally released from the Defendant's Halfway House

to home confmement due to several medical conditions, namely being diar osed with

Hepatitis C infection, Cirrhosis of the liver, diabetes, chronic fatigue, depression,thrombocytopenia, ascites, 1ow platelet cotmt, arl possible liver cancer indicated by

elevated alpha-fetoprotein levels shown in blood test and M Itl results. Given the fact

that the only subsequent changes to the M ovant's health condition has been ones inwhich his bealth has further deterioratedo and that the M ovant believed in good faith

that the Defendant's and their cotmsel were aware of these circllmsunces, andfurthermore that Defendant's cotmsel did not request any updated medical records

from the M ovant indicating a change in his current medical condition, he clid not


provide fnrther proof of lkis conditions as it was not requested or warranted under the

circllmstnnces. The Defendant's collnKel in his motion asserts that because theM ovant was able to appear at mediation, prepared his Motion for Sllmmary

Judgment, Statement of Facts, and Revised SGtements of Facts, the M ovant shouldhave been able to make it to the scheduled depositions; however this assertion does

not take into consideration that for the for the last seven months, the Ascites the

M ovant has been battling has caused llis physicians to give him a 50/50 chance ofsurviving his scheduled surgery, which has been rescheduled due to his exacerbated

medical condition, and the fact that he has used what little remaining energy he had

remaining to prepare llis motions and court docllments. (See Composite Exhibit 2 tothis motion).

1. Federal Rulets) of Civil Procedtlre 30(b)(4) deals with the adminisu tion of a depositionwheq a party is physically tmable to attend a scheduled deposition it provides additionalavenues for obtaining the information that achieves both the Defendant's need for

information irl regards to the discovery and the M ovant's physical ability to comply:EtBy Remote Means. n e parties may stipulate--or the court may on motion

order- that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote means. For the

purpose of this nzle and Rules 28(a), 37(a) (2), and 371) (1), the deposition tnkesplace where the deponent answers the questions.''

This however would have required a court order, which the Defendant's counsel was

tmwilling to acquire. Subdivision ('/# (4). ln order to facilitate less expensive procedures,provision is made for the recording of tesémony by other than stenopaphic means- e.g.,

by mechanical, eleckonic, or photovaphic means. Because these methods give rise toproblems of accuracy and trtzstworthiness, the party taking the deposition is required to

apply for a court order. The order is to specify how the testimony is to be recorded,

preserve; and filed, and it may contain whatever additional safeguards the court deemsnecessary. W hich leads the Movant to question whether the Defendant tnzly questioned

the M ovant's health condition, or whether tlzis was simply a subversive Gctic to avoid the

court addressing M ovant's Petition for Summary Judgment as they were fearhzl ofskength of the M ovant's case.

Rule 37(d) authorizes the district court to require an attorney ''to May the reasonableexpenses, including attom eys' fees, cattsed by the failure'' of its cllent to appear at a

deposition, ''llnless the court fmds that the failure was substantially justified or that othercircllmstances make an award of expenses unjust'' Under Rule 370942), which has thesame language as Rule 37(d), the burden of showing substxntial justification and specialcircllmstances is on tbe party being sanctioned. FalstaF Brewing Com . v. M iller Brewing

Co., 702 F.2d 770, 784 (9th Cir.1983). We thus apply the same burden of proof for Rule37(d). Since, Movant is the one here in the case facing sanctions, the bttrden of proof forproving that subsGntial justification for sanctions falls on the Defendnnts and theircolmsel, and although the Defendant's counsel has proven himselfto be an expert in the

area of law, llis ability to make material sutements of facts towards the M ovant's medicalcondition and ability to make it to depositions is in question.

The courts have also folmd in Hyde & Drath v. Kenneth R. Baker that:

1<W e cannot conclude that each of the appellant comorations was subsGntially

justified in failing to attend the depositions. Only K'ung's failttre to appear was

16


substxntiallyjustified. Altbough we have declined to reach the merits of theargument that K'tmg was excused 9om attending the depositions for health

reasons, we do decide that K'ung hada at the least, a good faith dispute concerningthe question of whether he was obligated to appear in light of his selious illness.

He was therefore substlmtially justified in failing to appear at the deposition. Id.(1* fact he subsequently died of brain cancer). However, as discussed above, noneof the other cop orations have a good faith dispute concerning their failures to

appear. Except for K'tmg, Hyde & Drath has failed to show that its clients were

substantiallyjustified in violating the court's discovery orders. (Hyde and Drath v.Kenneth R. Baker, et al (24 F.3d 1 162:.''

5. If the Defendnnt's counsel was tnzly convimced that the M ovant was avoiding their

request for discovery via deposition, they could have exercised their rights lmder Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(c)(d) andtg and filed a Subpoena for Deposition, ill whichthe court would issue a Command to Attend a Deposition. 'This would be done in an

eflbrt to (c)(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorneyresponsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid

imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The isstting courtmust enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction- which may include lost

earnings and reasonable attorney's fees--on a party or attorney who fails to comply. lnfollowing the rtzles of civil procedme, the court would issue and order for contempt in

which the issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been serve; failswithout adeqùate excuse to obey the subpoena.

6. Given the fact that Defendant's cotmsel knows that they would not have met the burden

of proof requidng the court to issue a subpoena for the M ovant to appear in light of thecxitical nature of his health condition, they chose instead to circumvent tllis process, and

use other avenues of achieving this means to their ends, thus robbing the court of its

power to compel compliance with the nzles of civil procedure.7. A district court has wide discretion to esGblish the time and place of depositions. In re

Standard M etals Com., 817 F.2d 625, 628 (10th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 488 U.S. 881,109 S.Ctd. 201, 102 L.Ed.2d 171 (1988). Here, the special master explained that it wasnecessary for the Hong Kong depositions to t-qke place in San Francisco so that the court

could oversee the proceedings since appellants had disregarded the previous deposition

order. He also noted that appellants had done business and filed suit in the NorthernDistlict of Califomia and should therefore expect to have to appear there. These facts are

sufikient to establish that there was no abuse of discretion in ordering the depositions to

occur in San Francisco.8. Before a district court dismisses a complaint, it must weigh the five factors prescribed in

W r derer v. Jolmston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir.1990). Then. tbe district court mttstfmd that a party's behavior in ignoring the depositions demonstvated willftzlness, bad

faith, or fault. Fjelstad v. American Honda Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9thCir.1985).

9. Finally, tbe fifth factor requires the district court to consider altem ate, less severe,sanctions before ordering dismissal. To determine whether tbe district court fulfilled this

obligation, the reviewing court examines whether tbe court (1) explicitly discussed thefeasibility of less drastic sanctions and explained why altemative sanctions would be

inappropriate, (2) implemented alternative sanctions before ordezing dismissal, and (3)

17


warned the party of the possibility of dismissal before actually ordering it. Adriana, 913F.2d at 1412-13. But, ''explicit discussion of alternntives is llnnecessary if the diskict

court acttzally tries altematives before employing the ultimate sanction of dismissal.''

M alone, 833 F.2d at 132.

Accordingly the Movant should be awarded sllmmary judpnent.

W HEREFORE, tmking into consideration the aforementioned premises, the M ovant respectftzlly

requests the Court to awarded sllmmary judgment.

Date: December 30, 201 1Respectfally Submitted,

'-

z wz ' zz . 2' vzzzr.,z vTRM AN BUJDIJVEANU, PRO SE

18


CERTIFIM TE OF SERW CE

l hereby certify that on or about DECEM BER 30, 201 l a trae and correct copy of tbe

foregoing docllment was served upon the following via the United States Postal

Service, First Class M ail:

Dismas Charities, Inc.,

141 N.W . 1 St Avenue

Dania, FL 33004-2835

Ana Gispert

Dismas Charities,lnc.

141 N.W . 1 St. Avenue

Dania, FL 33004-2835

Derek Thom as

Dismas Charitieszlnc.

141 N.W . 1 St. Avenue

Dania, FL 33004-2835

Lashanda AdamsDismas Charitieszlnc.141 N.W . 1 St Avenue

Dania ,FL 33004-2835

David S. ChaietEsquire

Attorney for Defendants

4000 Hollywood BoulevardSuite 265-South

Hollm ood, FL 33021

EXECUTED ON THIS 30 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011

e..''e ,

/ 4/û;J zz pp/rupk;qTRAIAN BUJDUV ANU, PRO SE5601 W . BROW ARD BLVD.,

PLANTATION, FL 33317


EX H IBIT 1


/5270.08

12/4/2009Chapter 2, Page 3

(TIME LIMITS IN DISCIPLINARY PROCESS

TABLE 2

2.

4.

Staff becomes aware of inmnte 's involvement in incident.

I Iordinarily maximum of 24 hours l

I IStaff gives inmnte notice of charges Ibv deliverinq Incident Report. l

I II IImaximum ordinarily of 3 work days from thel time staff became aware of the inmnte'sl involvement in the incident. (Excludes1 the day staff become aware of the inmnte'sIinvolvement, weekends, and holidays.)I lI II - - - - 1l Initial hearinq (UDc)I

minimum of 24 hours

(unless waived)1

Discipline Hearinq Officer (DHO) Hpapinq

NOTE : These time limits are

in the rules.

Staff may suspend disciplinary proceedings for a period

not to exceed two calendar weeks while informnlresolution is undertaken and accomplished. If informal

resolution is unsuccessful, staff may reinstitutedisciplinary proceedings at the same stage at whichsuspended. The requirements then begin running again,

at the same point at which they were suspended.l

subject to exceptions as provided


Chapter

P5270 .08

12/4/20093, Page l

CHAPTER 3

(INMATE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5541.12

RIGHTS

You have the right to expectthat as a human being you willbe treated respectfully, impar-tially , and fairly by all per-

sonnel.

You have the right to beinformed of the ruies, proce-dures, and schedules concerning

the operation of the institu-

tion.

You have the right to freedomof reAigious affiziation , and

voluntary religious worship.

You have the right to health 4.

care, which includes nutritiousmeals, proper bedding and clo-thing, and a Iaundry schedule

for cleaniiness of the same, an

opportunity to shower regularly,proper ventilation for warmth

and fresh air a regular exer-#cise period, toilet articlesand medical and dental treatment.

You have the right to visit and

correspond with family members,

and friends, and correspond withmembers of the news media in

keeping with Bureau rules andinstitution guidelines.

RESPONSIBILITIES

You have the responsibizity totreat others, both employees

and inmates, in the samemanner .

You have the responsibiiity to

know and abide by them .

You have the responsibility to

recognize and respect therights of others in this

regard.

It is your responsibility notto waste food, to foilow the

laundry and shower schedule,maintain neat and elean living

quarters, to keep your areafree of contraband and to#seek medical and dental care

as you may need it.

It is your responsibility to

conduct yourseif properlyduring visits, not to acceptor pass contraband, and not toviolate the law or Bureau

rules or institutionguidelines through your

correspondence.

You have the right to unrestric-

and confidential access to the

eourts by correspondence (onmatters such as the legality ofyour conviction, civil matters,

pending criminal cases, and

eonditions of your imprisonment.)

You have the right to legalcounsel from an attorney of your

choice by interviews and

correspondence .

7. 't is your responsibility touse the services of an

attorney honestly and fairly.)

6. You have the responsibility topresent honestly and fairlyyour petitions, questionszand

problems to the court.


95270.08


(RIGHTS

You have the right to parti-cipate in the use of law library

reference materials to assist

you in resolving legal problems.You also have the right to receiveheip when it is available through

a legal assistance program.

You have the right to a wide 9.

range of reading materials formaterials for educational purposes

and for your own enjoyment. Thesematerials may include magazinesand newspapers sent from the commun-ity, with cerkain restrictions.

You have the right to participate 10.

in education , vocational training

and employment as far as resourcesare available, and in keeping withyour interests, needs, and abilities.

It is your responsibility toseek and utiiize such

materials for your personalbenefit, without deprivingothers of their equal rightsto the use of this material.

RESPONSIBILITIES

It is your responsibility touse these resources in keepingwith the procedures and

schedule prescribed and torespect the rights of otherinmates to the use of the

materiais and assistance.

You have the responsibility to

take advantage of activitieswhich may help you live a

suecessful and law-abidinglife within the institution

and in the community. You

wili be expected to abide by

the regulations governing theuse of such activities.

You have the right to use yourfunds for commissary and otherpurchases, consistent with insti-tutuion security and good orderrfor

opening bank and/or savings accounts,and for assisting your family .

11. You have the responsibiliky tomeet your financial and legal

obligations, including, butnot limited to, court-imposedassessments, fines, and resti-tution. You also have the

responsibility to make use of

your funds in a mannerconsistent with your release

plans, your family needs, andfor other obligations that you

may have.)


P5270.08


(TABLE 3 (Cont'd)GREATEST CATEGORY (Contrd)

CQP# PROHIBITED ACTS SANCTIONS

l98 Interfering with a staff member Sanctions A-G)in the performance of duties.

(Conduct must be of theGreatest Severitv nature.)This charge is to be used oniywhen another charge of greatestseverity is not applicable.

l99 Conduct which disrupts orinterferes with the security ororderly running of theinstitution or the Bureau of

Prisons. (Conduct must be of

the Greatest Severitv nature.)This charge is to be used onlywhen another charge of greakestseverity is not applicable.


P5270 .08


(TABLE 3 (Cont'd)HIGH CATEGORY

çoPl PROHIBITED ACTS SANCTIONS

200 Escape from unescortedCommunity Programs and

activities and Open

Institutions (minimum) and fromoutside secure institutions--

without viozence.

Fighting with another person

202 (Note to be used)

203 Threatening another with bodilyharm or any other offense

204 Extortion, blackmail,protection: Demanding orreceiving money or anything of

vaiue in return for protection

against others, to avoid bodilyharm, or under threat of

informing

205 Engaging in sexual acts

206 Making sexual proposals or

threats to another

207 Wearing a disguise or a mask

208 Possession of any unauthorizedlocking device, or lock pick,or tampering with or blocking

any lock device (includeskeys), or destroying, altering,interfering with, improperly

using, or damaging any security

device, mechanism , or procedure

209 Adulteration of any food ordrink

2lO (Not to be used)

2ll Possessing any officer's or

staff clothing

Recommend Parole daterescission or retardation.

Forfeit earned statutory good

time or non-vested goodconduct time up to 50% or up

to 60 days, whichever is

less, and/or terminate ordisailow extra good time (anextra good time or goodconduct time sanction may not

be suspended) .

Disallow ordinarily between

25 and 50% (14-27 days) ofgood conduct time credit

available for year (a goodconduct time sanction may

not be suspended).

Disciplinary Transfer

(recommend).

Disciplinary segregation (upto 30 days).

E . Make monetary restitution.

Withhold statutory good timel


P5270.08


ITABLE 3 (Cont'd)HIGH CATEGORY (Cont'd)

ç9.P-:. -. .#AV#-T#ITED ACTS SANCTIONS

Engaging in, or encouraging a

group demonstration

Loss of privileges;

commissary, movies,recreation , etc.

H. Change housing (quarters)2l3 Encouraging others to refuse to

work, or to participate in a

work stoppage

(Not to be used)

Introduction of alcohoi into

BOP facility

Remove from program and/orgroup activity

Loss of job

Giving or offering an official

or staff member a bribe, oranything of value

Giving money to, or receivingmoney from, any person for

purposes of introducingcontraband or for any other

illegal or prohibited purposes

Impound inmate's personal

property

L. Confiscate contraband

Restriet to quarters)

218 Destroying, altering, or

damaging government property,or the property of anotherperson , having a value in

excess of $100.00 ordestroying, altering, damaging

life-safety devices (e.g., firealarm) regardless of financialvalue

219 Stealing (theft; this includesdata obtained through theunauthorized use of a

communications facility, or

through the unauthorized access

to disks, tapes, or computerprintouts or other automatedequipment on which data is

stored.)


P5270.08


(TABLE 3 (Cont'd)HIGH CATEGORY (Cont'd)

CODE PROHIBITED ACTS SANCTIONS

220 Demonstrating, practicing, or using Sanctions A-M)martial arts, boxing (except foruse of a punching bag), wrestiing,or other formm of physicalencounter, or military exercises or

drill (except for drili authorizedand conducted by staff)

221 Being in an unauthorized area witha person of the opposite sexwithout staff perma'ssion

222 Making, possessing, or usingintoxicants

223 Refusing to breathe into abreathalyser or take part in othertesting for use of alcohol

224 Assaulting any person (charged withthis act only when less seriousphysical injury or contact has beenattempted or carried out by an

inmxte)

297 Use of the telephone for abusesother than crq'ma'nal activity (e.g.,circumventing telephone monitoringprocedures, possession and/or useof another inmxte's PIN nnmner;

third-party caliing; third-partybilling; using credit card nnmhersto Place telephone calis;conference cailing; taiking incode).

298 Interfering with a staff member inthe performnnce of duties.

(Conduct must be of the HiqhSeverity nature.) This charge isto be used only when another chargeof the high severity is not

applicable.

299 Conduct which disrupts orinterferes with the security orordqrly running of the institution

or the Bureau of Prisons. (Conductmust be of the Hiqh Severitynature.) This charge is to be usedonly when another charge of highseverity is not applicable.


P5270.08


authorization

ITABLE 3 (Cont'd)MODERATE CATEGORY (Conted)


329 Destroying, altering or anmnging Sanctions A-N)government property, or theproperty of another person, having

a value of $100.00 or less

330 Being unsanitary or untidy; failing

to keep one's person and onefsquarters in accordance with postedstandards

331 Possession, manufacture, or

introduction of a non-hazardoustool or other non-hazardouscontraband (Tool not likely to beused in an escape or escapeattempt, or to serve as a weaponcapable of doing serious bodilyharm to others, or not hazardous toinstitutional security or personalsafety; Other non-hazardouscontraband includes such itomm as

food or cosmetics)

332 Smoking where prohibited

397 Use of the telephone for abusesother than crq'mn'nal activity (e.g.,conference calling, possession

and/or use of another inmnte's PINnumner three-way calling,providing false informntion forpreparation of a telephone list).

398 Interfering with a staff momher inthe performnnce of duties.

(Conduct must be of the ModerateSeverity nature.) This charge isto be used oniy when another chargeof moderate severity is notapplicable.

399 Conduct which disrupts orinterferes with the security ororderiy running of the institutionor the Bureau of Prisons. (Conduetmust be of the Moderate Severitynature). This charge is to be usedonly when another charge ofmoderate severity is notappiicable.


P5270.08


ITABLE 3 (Cont'd)LoW MODERATE CATEGORY


400 Possession of property Disallow ordinarily up to

belonging to another person 12.5% (1-7 days) of goodconduct time credit avaiiabie

401 Possessing unauthorized amount for year (to be used onlyof otherwise authorized where inmate found to have

clothing committed a second violation

of the same prohibited act

402 Malingering, feigning iliness within 6 months); Disallowordinarily up to 25% (1-14

403 Not to be used days) of good conduct timecredit avaiiable for year (tobe used only where inmate

404 Using abusive or obscene found to have committed a

language third violation of the sameprohibited act within 6

405 Tattooing or self-mutilation months) (a good conduct timesanction may not be

406 Not to be Used suspendedl.) (See Chapter 4Page 16 for VCCLEA violent and

PLRA inmates.)407 Conduct with a visitor in

violation of Bureau regulations (E. Make monetary restitution.(Restriction, or Aoss for aspecific period of time, of Withhold statutory good time.

these privileges may often be

an appropriate sanction G) Loss of privileges:commissary , movies,

408 Conducting a business recreation, etc.

409 Unauthorized physicai contact Change housing (quarters).(e.g., kissing, embracing)

Remove from program and/orgroup activity.lUnauthorized use of mail

(Restriction, or loss for aspecific period of time, ofthese privileges may often be

an appropriate sanction G)(Maybe categorized and charged interms of greater severity,

according to the nature of the

unauthorized use; e.g., themail is used for planning,faciiitating, committing an

armed assault on the

institution's secure perimeter,

would be charged as Code 101,

Assault)


/5270.08


ITABLE 3 (Cont'd)LOW MODERATE CATEGORY (Contrd)


J. Loss of job.497 Use of the teiephone for abuses

other than criminal activity Impound inmate's personal

(e.g., exceeding the ls-minute property.time limit for telephone calls;using the telephone in an Confiscate contraband .

unauthorized area; placing ofan unauthorized individual on M. Restrict to quarters.

the teiephone list).N . Extra duty.

498 Interfering with a staff member

in the performance of duties.Conduct must be of the Low

Moderate Severity nature.)This charge is to be used only

when another charge of 1ow

moderate severity is notapplicable.

499

Reprimand.

Warning.

Conduct which disrupts orinterferes with the security ororderly running of theinstitution or the Bureau of

Prisons. (Conduct must be ofthe Low Moderate severity

nature.) This charge is to beused only when another chargeof low moderate severity is not

applicable.

NOTE : Aiding another person to commit any of these offenses,

attemptinq to commit any of these offenses, and makinq plans to commit

any of these offenses , in all categories of severity , shall be

considered the same as a commission of the offenses itself.l

When the prohïbited act is interfering with a staff member in the

performance of duties (Code 198, 298, 398, or 498), or Conduct Which

Disrupts (Code 199, 299, 399, or 499), the DHO cr UDC, in itsfindings, should indicate a specific finding of the severity level of

the conduct, and a comparison to an offense (cr offenses) in thatseverity level which the DH0 or UDC fânds is most comparable .

Sanction B .l may be inposed cn the Low

the inmate has committed the same low

Moderate category only where

moderate prohibited act more


EV IBIT 2


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 83-2 Entered On FLSD Docket 12/16/2011 Page 57 Of 62

3P-5205.073 INCIDENT REPORT (CCC'S) CDFRMAUG 99

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDEPAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

1. Name of CCC:DISMAS CKKRITIES. DANIA BrkcH Part I - Incident Report

2. Name of Offender 3.kegister Number 4 . DBte of Incident 5. TimeBujduveanu,Traian 80655-004 10/13/10 l:oopm

DisTes charities: FmC Pre Release Sencence

9. Incident: Possession manufacture, or introduction of a hazardous tool. / Violating a conditionof a community program. Code: 108, 309

ll. Description of Incident (Date: 10/13/10 Time: 1:0Qpm staff become aware of incident)

On 10/13/10 I observed offender Bujduveanu walking towards his vehiclelblue Ford Explorer Lruck) inthe resident parking lot. He then got into the vehicle and backed the vehicle into a parkingspace. I asked his counselor if he was authorized to drive and she stated that he was not and thathis wife was authorized to transport him. A review of his file corroborated that he was notauthorized to drive. Offender Bujduveanu had driven the vehicle from his bome to the facility. HisQounselor went outside and brought offender Bujduveanu inside where we questioned him about why hewas drivinq without authorization. Staff explained to him that it was against the rules for him tooperate a vehicle without permission and we searched his vehicle. During the search staff found anunauthorized cell phone (blaek Motorola in offender Bujduveanu's name) and a black Motorola carphone charger. Offender Budjuveanu is therefore in violation of code Bog:violating a condition of acommunity program and code lD8:possession manufacture, or introduction of a hazardous tool.

l .signa ure of reong Employee Date & Time l3. Name & Title (Printed).A

r z' /13/1D 2:30pm Derek Thomas Assistant DirectorV z'=>#zr v

Rlivered to Above Offender By lB. Date In ide t Report Deliveredlt Incidrnt RepoytN '. (.s Jg go. j (,%2Q% I v ez

.%

) .- - -< Time Incident Report Delivered

o -? A %Record Copy - central File Rrcord; Copy - DHO; Copy - Inmate After UDC Action; Copy - Inmate Within 24 Hours OfTTfï 7 TYeparstxon --(This Form May Ee Replicated Via WP) Replaces BP-2:5.o73 Of &hR 91


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 83-2 Entered On FLSD Docket 12/16/2011 Page 58 of 62

Part 11 - CDC Action

l7. Comments of Inmate to CDC Regarding Above Incident

Offender Bujduveanu. Trakn offered the following stateoent: Please refer to offender's written statement.

It Is The Finding Of The CDC That You: B. x The CDC Is Referring The Chargels) To TheDHo For Purther Hearing.

x Committed The Following Prohibited Act.

C. x The rnr Advised Tbe offender Of Its Finding:

'

...,..... .Did Not Commit A Prohibited Act. And Of The Right To File An Appeal Within 2: CalendarDays.

l9. Committee Decision Is Based On The Following Information

' The CDC found evidence that your behavior violared the Bopzs Prohibited Act, Code lû8; Possession,

manufacture or introduction of a hazardous tool & Code 309; Violating a condition of a community program.l

. The Committee based its decision on the facts outlined in the written report: On 10/13/10 I observed offenderBujduveanu walking towards his vehicletblue Ford Explorer truck) in the resident parking lot. He then gotJ i

nto the vehiele and backed the vehicle into a parking space. I asked his counselor if he was authorized todrive and she stated that he was not and that hks wkfe was authorized to transport him. A review of his filecorroborated that he was not authorized to drive. Offender Bujduveanu had driven the vehicle from his home tothe facility. His cMlnselor went outside and brought offender Bujduveanu knside where we question

ed himabout why be was driving without authorization. Staff explained to him that it was against the rules for himto operate a vehicle without permission and we searched his vehicle

. During the search staff found ank

'

unauthorized cell phone (black Motorola kn offender Bujduveanu's name) and a black Motorola car phone1 .

charger. Offender Bujduveanu is therefore in violation of code 3og:violating a condition of a rommunityprogram and rode lo8:possession manufacture, or introduction of a harardous tool.

2c. committee actkon and/or recommendatkon if referred to DHo (Contingent upon DHo finding inmate committ'

prohibited act);

Based on the above evidence the CDC Committee recommends offender Bujduveanu, Train remain' Disciplinary transferred.

2l. Date And Time Of Action lD/29/10 ll:25am (The CDC Chairperson's Signature Next To--- -z-Name-certi.f-iee-.Who -Sat--% -T.he..X C-M d-.That-.The- Completed Repoc - Accqzru-àtely-itefalectsc he- CDc-p.roceedimgs-.l- - - .- - ..

calo kuqel i -Chairperson (Typed Maoe/signature) Member (ryped Name) Member lTyped Name)


Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 83-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/16/2011 Page 59 of 62

Page 28P-5205.073

i.22. Date And Time Investigation Began

iPart III - Investigation 10/22/10 l2:ODpm l23. Offender Advised Of Right To Remain Sklent: You Kre Kdvised Of Your Right To Remak

n Silent At All StagesOr The Disciplinary process But Are Informed That Your Silence May Be Used To Draw An Adverse InferenceA

gainst You At Any Stage Of The Institutional Disciplinary Process. You Are Also Informed That Your SilenceKlone May Not Be Used To Bupport A Findkng That You Have Committed N Prohkbited Act .

:

4. Dffender Statement And Attitude

offender Bujduveanu stated to this investigator that he was sorry and he would never intentionally violate arule or regulation. He however did admit to driving a vehicle from his home to the fa

cility without approveauthorization. He stated that > The cell phone and charger belonged to his family

.- He <as not aware thatthey were in the vehicle.

25. other Facts About The Incident, Statements Of Those Persons Present At Scene, Disposition Of Evidence

.Etc.

Resident does not have authorization to drive himself. He has authorization for his wife to drive him to andfrom his appointments. See attached photos of the cell phone and charger

. It is clear that offenderBujduveanu, Train violated the program's conditions.

26. Investigator's Comments And Conclusion

Based on tbe on the reporting staffzs testimony, the photo evidence and the offender's admission that hedrove unauthorized from his home to the facility

. this investigator concludes the violation was committed ascharqed.

27. Action Taken

Disciplinary transfer and refer to the CDC for Hearing.

Date And Time Investigation Completed 10/22/10 at l2;45pm .

Printed Kame/signature f Investigator Bobbie Lowery

,< ( '..- CounselorSi ture Title

Page 381-5205.D73


Case 1:11-cv-2012O-PAS Document 83-2 Entered On FLSD Docket 12/16/2011 Page 60 Of 62

Page 28:-5205.073

22. Date And Time Investigation BeganFart III - Investigation 10/22/10 l2:00pm

23. Offender Advised Of Right To Remain Silent: You Are Advised Of Your Right To Remain Silent At All StagesOf The Disciplinary Process But Are Informed That Your Silence May Be Used To Draw An Adverse InferenceAgainst You At Any Stage Of The Institutional Disciplinary Process. You Are Also Informed That Your SilenceAlone May Not Be Used To Support A Finding That You Have Cnmmitted A Prohibited Art.

The Offender Was Advised Of The Above Right By Bobby Lowery At (Data/time)l0/22/l0 atl2t00pm

Offender Statement And Attitude

Offender Bujduveanu stated to this investigator that he was sorry and he would never intentionally violate arule or regulation. He however did admit to driving a vehicle from hie home to the facility without approvedauthorization. He stated that n The cell phone and charger belonged to his family.- He was not aware thatthey were in the vehicle.

Other Facts About The Incident. Statements Of Those Persons Present At Scene, Disposition Of Evidence,

ResiGent does not have authorization to drive himself. He has autborization for his wife to drive him to andfrom his appointments. See attached photos of the cell phone and charger. It is clear that offender

Bujduveanu, Train violated the program's conditions.

26. Investigator's Comments And Conclusion

Based on the on the reporting staff's testimony, the photo evidence and the offender's admission that hedrove unauthorized from his home to the facility, this investigator concludes tbe vkolation was rommitted ash r edC a 9 .

27. Action Taken

Disciplinary transfer and refer to the CDC for Hearing.


i

tCase 1:11-cv-2012O-PAS Document 83-2 Entered On FLSD Docket 12/16/2011 Page 61 Of 62

Part 11 - CDC Action

l7. Cnmments of Inmate to CDC Regarding Above Incident

Offender Bujduveanu. Traian offered the following statement: Please refer to offender.s written statement.

il .1Ih!)

I

;

:18. A. It Is The Finding Of The CDC That You: B. x The CDC Is Referring The Chargels) To TheDHO For Further Hearing.

x Committed The Following Prohibited Act.C. x The CDC Advised The Offender Of Its Finding

Did Not Commit A Prohkbited Act. And Of The Right To File An Appeal Within 2D Calendar2Days.

l9. Committee Decision Is Based On The Pollowing Information

The CDC found evidenre that your behavior violated the Bopzs Prohibited Act, Code l9B; Possession,

'

manufacture or introduction of a hazardous tool & Code 3û92 Violating a condition of a com=Anity program.The Commirtee based its decision on the facts outlkned in the written report: on l0/l3/lQ I observed offender

Bujduveanu walking towards his vehicletblue Ford Explorer truck) in the resident parking lot. He then goti

nto the vehicle and backed the vehicle into a parking space. I asked his counselor if he was authorized to' drive and she stated that he was not and that his wife was authorized to transport him

. A review of his filecorroborated that he was not authorized to drive. Offender Bujduveanu had driven tbe vehicle from his home to

' the facility. His cm4oselor went outside an8 brought offender Bujduveanu inside where we questioned himabout why he was driving without authorization. staff explained to him that it was agaiast the rules for himto operate a vehicle without permission and we searched his vehicle. During the search staff found anunauthorized cell phone (black Motorola in offender Bujduveanu's name) and a black Motorola car phone

' charger. Offender Bujduveanu is therefore in violation of eode 3og:violating a condition of a communit

yprogram nna code lo8lpossession manufacture, or kntroduction of & hazardous tool.

. 2o. Committee action and/or recommendation if referred to DHo lcontingent upon DHO finding inmate committedprohibited a

ct)

Based on the above evidence the CDC Committee recommends offender Bujduveanu, Train remain

Disciplinary transferred.

2l. Date And Time Of Action 1Q/29/lQ tl:25am (The CDC Chairperson's Signature Next To.. --

'-xamec erti.fqier n o..lc -.a -The 'Mc-.M d-That-Tho-cY plete-.RepoO cc= rœteW-Ref lect= he-cDc-.proceedings...eè - -.-. -.-. . .

Galo Ruqel. Chairperson (Typed NaMe/si hrure) Member (Typed Name) Member (Typed Name)


Q VIVZI:IFKX #YOPAFO (fCV1%W W IOVr#M On FLSD Docket 12/16/2011 Page 62 Of 62U.S. DEPARTMANT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL BUQRAU OF PRISONS

Name of Inmate < , Register No. (( -:; .lFacility Dismas Charities

YES NO NA

ADVANCE NOTICE OF CHAQGE

n e inmste was given advance written notice of the chargets) against him no less than 24 hoursbefore the appearance before tbe CDC.

(2) If the answer to (1 ) is t:No992(a n e inmate waived the 24-170< notice, or

n ere exists a valid reeason why the 24-hour notice was not given. n e remson is:S ee zaqccù e- n''f

STAFF QEPQESENTATION

The inmate requested a stzff representative and that staff represenutive appeared.

n e inmpte did not request a staff representative and, thereby, waived the right to a staffr resentative. '

n e inmnterequested a representative wborefused or was unable to appear, and theinnute cbose

to contirme the bearing in tbe absence of the requested representative aher being advised of theoption to postpone the henring in order to obtsu'n another represenhtive.a e. ct4)4 cû .%.e..,-

W ITNESSES AND DOCIM NTM W EVD ENCE

n e inmate waived the zight to call wimesses.

(5)

-----%..,.,.,'''-

-----.-.,.'...-'--'

- . (8)

- (9)

(10)

(12)

( 14)

n e inmate requested witnesses.(a) n e requested witnesses appeared and sGtements are summarized in the record.(b) Reasons for not calling requested wimesses m'e documented in the record.(c) Written svtements of unavailable wime-sses were submittH, considered, and included in the

record. Teo qfs ucîhem -rt'fw

n e inmate submitted written documentation which wms considered and is included in the record.

n e inmate's stAtement to tbe CDC is summarized in the record.

FINDG GS AND SPECIFIC EO ENCE

n e findings of the CDC are supported by a subs% tial facmal basis.

n e p ecifc evidence relied on is adequately documented in the record.

SANCTION

n e sanction recommended by the CDC is proportionate to the offense committed.

n e remson for the sanction are adequately documented in the record. N

n e DHO has added sanctions. c. y- g..tt

(This form may be replicated via W P) Replaces 8P-494 of M AR 91


EX H IBIT 3


PROHIBITED ACTS AND DISCIPLINARY SEVERITY SCALE

GREATEST CATEGO RY

The UDC will refer a11 Greatest Severity Prohibited Acts to the DHO with recommendations as to an

appropriate disposition.

CODE PROO ITED ACTS

1O0 Killing

l01

SANCTIONS

A. Recommend parole date rescissionor retardation .

Forfeit earned statutory goodtime or non-vested good conduct

time (up to 100%) and/orterninate or disallow extra goodtime (an extra good time or goodconduct time sanction >ay not be

suspended).

Disaizow ordinarily between 50

and 75% (27-41 days) of goodeonduct time credit availablo forthe year (a good conduct timesanction may not be suspendod).

Assaulting any person (includes sexualassault) or an armed assault on the B.institution's secure perimeter (achargû for assaulting any person atthis level is to be used only when

serious physical injury has beonattempted or carried out by an inmate)

Escape from escort; escape from a

secure institution (low, medium, and B.lhigh security level and aaov'nistrative

institutions); or escapo from aminimum institution with violence

l02

l03 Setting a fire (charged with this actin this category only when found to

pose a threat to life or a threat ofserious bodily harm or in furtheranceof a prohibited act of Greatest D.Severityr e.g. in furtherance of a

riot or escape; otherwise the chargeis properly classified Code 218, or E.

329)F .

104 Possession, manufacture , or

introduction of a gun , firearm ,

weapon: aharpenod instv .-ent,knife, Hnngerous chemical,oxplosivo or any n-ounition

iQ5 Rioting

Disciplinary Transfer

(recommend).

Disciplinary sogregation (up to60 days).

Make monetary restitution.

Withhold statutory good time

(Note - can be in addition to Athrough E - cannot be the only

sanction executed).

Loss of privileges (Note - can bein addition to A through E

106 Encouraging others to riot

107 Taking hostagels)

1Q9 Possession , manufacture , or

introduction of a hazardous tool

(Tools most likely to be usod inan escape or escape attempt or toserve as weapons capable of doing

serious bodily harm to others; orthose hazardous to institutional

t security or personal safety; e.g.,' hack-saw blade). :


GREATEST CATEGORY (cont)

CODE PROHEBITED A- C- TS SANCTIONS109 (Not to be used) A. Recommlnd parole date rpscission or

retardation.110 Refusing to provide a urine sample

or to take part in other drug-abuse B. Forfeit earned statutory good time

or non-vested good conduct time (up1l1 Introduction of any nareotics, to 100%) and/or terminate or

marijuana, amags, or related disallow extra good time (an extraparaphernaiia not prescribed for the good time or good conduct time

individual by the medical staff sanction >ay not be suspended).

l12 Use of any narcotics, marijuana, B.1 Disallow ordinarily between 50 andanlgsr or rezated paraphernalia not 75% (27-41 days) of good conductprescribed for the individual by the time credit available for year (amedical staff good conduct time sanction may not

bo suspended).113 Possession of any narcotics,

marijuana, av:gs, or related C. Disciplinary Transfer (recommend)paraphernalia not prescribod for theindividual by the medicai staff D. Discipiinary segregation (up to 60

days).197 Use of the telephone to further

criminal activity. Z. M>Ve monetary restitution.

l98 Interfering with a staff mmmHer in F' Withhold statutory good time (Note -the performance of duties. (Conduct can be in addition to A through E -

t be of the Greatest Severitv Cannot be the Only sanctionmus

turea This charge is to be used executed).naonly when another chargo of greatest

ity is not applicable. Q' LOSS Cf Priviiecef (NOt* - Can be insover

aaaa'tion to A through E)199 Conduct which disrupts or intorferes

with the security or orderly runningof the institution or tho Bureau of

Prisons. (Conduct must be of theGreatest Severitv nature.) Thischarge is to be used only whenanother charge of greatest severityis not appticabze .

H IGH CATEG ORY

CODE PROHTRITED ACTS SANCTIONSA . Recommend parole date rescission or

200 Escape from unescorted Community retardation.

Programs and activities and OpenInstitutions (minimum) and from B. Forfeit earned statutory good timeoutside secure institutions--without or non-vested good conduct time upviolence. to 50% or up to 60 days, whichever

is lessr and/or terxinate or2Q1 Fighting with another person disaliow extra good time (an extra

good time or good conduct time

202 (Note to be used) sanction may not be suspended)

203 Threatening another with bodily hxrmor any other offense


HIGH CATEGORY (cont)

SANCTIONSCODE PROHYBITED ACTS

2Q4 Extortion , blackmail, protection: B .l Disallow ordinarily between 50Dexmnding or roceiving aoney or anything and 75A (27-41 days) of goodof vaiuo in return for protection eonduct timo credit available for

against others, to avoid bodily harm, or year (a good conduct timeunder threat of informing sanction >ay not bo suspended).

2Q5 Engaging in sexual acts Disciplinary Transfer

(recommend).206 Mxving sexual proposals or threats to

another Disciplinary segregation (up to60 days).

207 Wearing a disguise or a mask

E. Mnve monetary restitution.208 Posslssion of any unauthorized locking

device, or lock pick, or tampering with Withhoid statutory good time

or blocking any loek devico (includeskeys), or destroying, altoring, G. Loss of privileges: commissary,interfering with, improperly using, or movies, recreation, etc.

anoagin: any security device, mechanism,or procedure H. Change housing (quartors)

209 Adulteration of any food or drink Remove from prograx and/or groupactivity

2l0 (Not to be used)Loss of job

211 Poasossing any officer's or staffciothing K. Impound inmate's personal

property212 Engaging in, or encouraging a group

demonstration Confiscate contraband

2l3 Encouraging others to refuse to work, or M .to participate in a work stoppage

2l4 (Not to be used)

215 Introduction of alcohol into BOP

facility

216 Giving or offering an official or staffmooner a bribe, or anything of value

2l7 Giving money top or rlceiving money

from, any person for purposes ofintroducing contraband or for any other

illegal or prohibitod purposes

2l8 Destroying, altering, or anmnginggovernoent property, or the property ofanother person, having a value in excess

of $100.00 or destroying, altering,8nmaging life-safety devices (e.g., firealnvm) regardless of financial value

Restrict to quartors


CODE PROHTRITED ACT

2l9 Stoaling (theft; this includes dataobtained through tho unauthorized use ofa communications faciiityz or throughthe unauthorized access to disks, tapesr B.

or computer printouts or other automatedequipment on which data is stored)

220 Demonstrating, practicing, or using

martial arts, boxing (axcept for use ofa punching bag), wrestling, or othqrforms of physical encounter, or militaryexercises or driil (except for driliauthorized and conducted by B.1

staff)

Being in an unauthorized area with a

person of the opposite sex without staffpermission

Disciplinary Transfer222 Mnling, possossing, or using intoxicants (recommead).

223 Refusing to breathe into a breathalyser Disciplinary sogregation (up toor take part in other testing for use of 30 days).alcohol

E. Make monetary restitution.

224 Assaulting any person (charged with thisact only when less sorious physical Wi+hhold statutory good timo

injury or contact has been attempted orcarried out by an inmate) G. Loss of priviieges: commissary,

movies, recreation, etc.297 Use of tho telephono for abuses other

than criminal activity (e.g., Change housing (quarters)circumventing teiephone monitoring

proeedures, possession and/or use of Remove from program and/or groupanother inmate's PIN nlxmher; third-party activitycailing; third-party billing; using

credit card numHers to place telephone Loss of jobcalls; conference calling; talking in

code). K. Impound inmate's personalproperty

298 Interfering with a staff member in theperformance of duties. (Conduct must be Confiscate contraband

of the Hiqh Severitv nature.) ThisM . Restrict to quarterschargo is to be used only whon

another charge of the high severity

is not applicable.

299 Conduct which disrupts or interfereswith the security or orderly running ofthe institution or the Bureau of

Prisons. (Conduct must be of tho HiqhSeveritv nature.) This charge is to beused only when another charge of highsovority is not appiicable.

HIGH CATEGORY (cont)

SANCTIONS

A. Recommend parole date rescissionor retardation .

Forfeit earned statutory good

time or non-vested good conducttime up to 50A or up to 60 days,

whichever is less, and/orterminate or disallow extra good

time (an extra good time or goodconduct time sanction may not be

suspended)

Disallow ordinarily between 25

and 50% (14-27 days) of goodconduct timo crodit available

for year (a good conduct timesanction may not be suspended).

16


M O DERATE CATEGORY

SANCTIONSA. Reeommend parole date rescission or

retardation.

303 Possession of money or currency,

unless speeifically authorized,or in excess of the amountauthorizod

3O4 Loaning of property or anything

of valve for profit or increasedreturn

305 Possossion of anything not

authorized for retention orreceipt by the inmatey and not

issued ko him through regularchnonels

306 Refusing to work, or to accept a

program assignment

307 order

Forfeit earned statutory Food time

or non-vested good conduct time up

to 25% or up to 30 daya, whichever

is less, and/or terminate ordisallow extra good time (an extra


sanction may not be suspended).

B.1 Disallow ordinarily up to 258 (1-14days) of good conduct time credit

available for year (a good conducttime sanction may not be

suspended).

Disciplinary Transfer (recommend).

Disciplinary segregation (up todays).

Make monetary restitutionx

D.

E .

F. Withhold ltatutory good time.l

Refusing to obey an of any

staff momuer (May be categorizodand charged in terms of greater

sevêrity, according to the natureof the order being disobeyed;

e,gw failure to obey an orderwhich furthers a riot would becharged as 105, Riotingl refusingto obey an order which furthers afight would be chargod as 201,Fighting; rofusing to provide a

urine sample when ordered wouid

be charged as Code 110)

Loss of privileges: commissary,movies, recreation, etc.

Change housing (quartors).

Remove from program and/or groupactivity .

Loss of job.

Impound inmate's personal property.

Confiscate contraband.

Rostrict to quarters.

Extra duty .

308 Violating a condition of afurlough

309 Violating a condition of acommunity program

31O Unêxcused absence from work or

any assignment

M .

Failing to perform work asinstructed by the supervisor

312 Insolence towards a staff m--her

Lying or providtng a faisestatexent to a staff member.

CODE PROHTRITED ACTS300 Indeoent Exposure

30l (Not to be used)

302 Misuse of authorized medication


CODE PROHIBITEP ACTS

314 Counterfeiting, forging or

unauthorized reproduction of anydocument, article of identification

,

money, security, or official paper. B.(May be categorized in terms of

greater severity aceording to the

nature of the item being reproduced;e.g., counterfeiting release papersto effect escape, Code 102 or Codo200)

Recommend parole date rescission or

retardation.

3l5 Participating in an unauthorized

moeting or gathering

Bêing in an unauthorized area

'orfeit earned statueory good time

or non-vested good conduct time up

to 25% or up to 37 daya, whichever

is less. and/or termlnate ordisallow extra good time (an extragood time or good conduct time


B.l Disallow ordinarily up to 25+ (1-14days) of good conduct time credie

available for year (a good conducttime sanction may not besuspended).317 Failure to follow safety or

sanitation regulations

318 Using any equipment or machinerywhich is not spocifically authorized

D .

319 Using ary equipment or machinery

contrary to instructions or postodsafety standards Z.

32Q Failing to stand count F.

32l Interfering with the taking of count

322 (Not to be used)

H .323 (Not to be used)

324 GnmHling

325 Preparing or conducting a gnohling

pooi

K .326 Possession of gnoHiing paraphernaiia

327 Unauthorized contacts with the public

M .328 Giving money or anything of value to

,

ing money or anything of N'or accept

value from: another inmnte, or any

other person without staff

authorization

Disciplinary Transfer (reconmend).

Disciplinary segregation (up to 15

days).

Make aonetary restitution.

Withhold statutory good time-l


Chango housing (quarters).

Remove from program and/or groupaetivity.

Loss of job.

Impound inmate's personal property .


Restrict to quarters.

Extra duty .

329 Deetroying, altering or damagiag

governxent property, or the property

of another persone having a value of

$l0û.0Q or less

M ODERATE CATEGORY (Cont)

SANCTIONS

A .


MODERATE CATEGORY (Cont)

CODE330

PRONHBITED ACTSBeing uasanitary or untidy; A .

failing to keep one's person andone's quarters in accordance with

posted standards B.

SANCTIONSRecn- end parole date rescission orretardation.

Forfeit earned statutory good time

or non-vested good conduct time upto 25% or up to 30 dayae whichever

is less, and/or terminate ordisallow extra good time (an extra



331 Possession, mnnulacture, or

introduction of a non-hazardous

tool or other non-hazardous

contraband (Tool not likely to beused in an escape or escape

attempt, or to serve as a weapon

capable of doing serious bodilyharm to others, or not hazardous

to institutional security or

personal safety; Other

non-hazardoua contraband includes

such items as food or cosmetics)

332 Smoking where prohibited

397

B.l Disallow ordinarily up to 25% (1-14

days) of good conduct time credit

available for year (a good conducttime sanction may not be

suspended).

Disciplinary Transfer (recommend).

D .

Use of the telephone for abusea

other thnn criminal activity

(e.g., conference calling,

possession and/or use of anotherinmate's PIN nAxmHer, three-way

callingy providing false

infox-xtion 5or preparation of a

telephone list).

Disciplinary segregation (up to 15days).

Make monetary restitution.

Withhold statutory good timep)

Loss of pràvileges: commissary,moviess recreation, etc.

E .

F.

398 Interfering with a staff momher

in the performance of duties.

(Conduct must be of the Moderate

Severity nature.) This charge isto be used only when another

charge of moderate severity is

not applicable.

399

H. Change housing (quartersj.

DoRove from program and/or groupactivity.

Loss of job.

Impound inmateês personal property .



Extra duty.

K .

Conduct which disrupts or

interferea with the security or

orderly n vnning of the

institution or the Bureau of

Prisons. (Conduct must be of the

Moderate Severity nature). Thischarge is to be used only when

another charge of moderate

severity is not applicable.

M .

N .

19


LOW M ODERATE CATEGO RY

COD: PROHG ITED ACTS

4O0 Possession of property beionging to

another person

401 Possessing nnouthorizod amount of

otherwise authorized clothing

4Q2 Malingering, feigning illness

403 Not to be used

404 Using abusive or obseene ianguage

4Q5 Tattooing or self-mutilation

406 Not to be Used

407 Conduct with a visitor in violation of

Buroau regulations (Restriction, orloss for a specifie period of timerthese priviloges may ofton be an

appropriate sanction G)

408 Conducting a business

409 Unauthorized physical contact (e.g.,kissing, omhracing) H.

4l0

SANCTIONSof the institution or the Buroau

of Prisons.

B.l Disakiow ordinarily up to 12.5*

(1-7 days) of good conduct timecredit available for Year (to beused only where inmate found tohave committed a second violation

of the same prohibited act within

6 months); Disallow ordinarily upto 25% (1-14 days) of good conducttime credit available for year (tobo used only whore inmate found tohave committed a third violation

of the same prohibited act within

6 months) (a good conduct timesanction may not be suspended).

of E . Mnke monetary restitution.

F. Withhold statutory good time.


Change housing (quarters).

Remove from Program and/or groupactivity.

Loss of job.

Impound inmate's personal

property.

Confiscato contraband.


Extra duty .

Reprimand.

Warning.

Unauthorized use of mail(Restriction, or loss for a specificperiod oE time, of these privilegesmay often be an appropriate sanction

G) (May be categorizod and charged interms of greater soverityr accordingto the nature of the unauthorized use;e.g., the mail is used for plnnning,facilitating, committing an arxedassault on the institution's secureperimeter, wouid be chargod as Code M .

101y Assault)

4 9 7 Use of the teiephone for abuses otherthan criminal activity (e.g., 0.excoeding the ls-minute time limit fortelephone calls; using the telephone

in an unauthorizod area; placing of anunauthorized individuai on thetelephone iist).

498 Interfering with a staff meoHor in the

performanee of duties. Conduct must bêof the Low Moderate Severitv nature.)

499 Conduct which disrupts or interferes

with the socurity or orderly running

20


EX H IBIT 4


can initially be assigned to tlais Level for a specific num ber of days, then depending on their

adjtlstment , may be transfen-ed to Pre-release component. Other residents are designated CCCstatus entire stay by CCM office.

RESPONSIBILITIES-

1 . You must diligently search for enp loyment M onday through Fliday until you have

secured em ploym ent. One job search site daily.2. You must obtain full-time elnployment within l 5 calendar days of your arrival

.

3. You must m aintain full-time employment

4. You m ust call the center when you get to work and prior to your return.

5. You must follow your Individual Program Plan

6. You must attend and pal-ticipate is required program activities to incltlde journaling and12 hours of life skills.

7.

8.

9.1 0. You m tlst pay stlbsistence on time and open savings account and m ake deposits of at l

east1 0% of your net income each pay day

.

1 1. You must begin to pay toward your Court Ordered fines and restitutions and any otherCoul4 Ordered obligations: Example: Child Suppol-t

, gam ishments, etc.12. You m ust develop a budget with your Counselor

1 3. You m ust rem ain alcohol and dlalg free

You must m aintain clean living quartersYou m ust com plete assigned work details

You m ust maintain clear conduct

'<> . % . . . . m '* w ,,

PRIVILEGES-ft' 1 . You will be able to access em ergency m edical care and progranuning appointme

nts in the .,.)$. community as approved by the BOP

, your Counselor tand/orl Facility Director/ Assistant ,,,.'

'- -.- -- Director, or USPO. (Receipts must be submitted to staff for a1l appointmentsm social y'N

.-- . - - lX .! etC -

. .- . ..- -. -. .. . ..- ..- ... - ... . ... .

' 2. You wiffbe able to attend weekly church sel vlces, as approved by your Counselor,y.?.1

,'

' maxinnum of (3) hours per week including travel. Church must be within (5) miles of the/ facility. tchurch Bulletin and a completed Church Repol't Form 14-111st be provided upon

-

your return back from the facility) Note: Exce tions to the 5) mile rule will only bel de whcn your stated denolnination of worshi can not be located within five m iles of --- 1-171 11L< - ---.- ) --w-..t 'le l o ram .

3. You will be able to participate in visits pursuant to the posted visitation schedule

4. You will be allowed out of the center one time each month for a haircut and purchase (jf

personal hygiene prodtlcts, etc. ( l hour maximum)

LEVEL 2- Residents in this level are only allowed access to the commtlnity for the purpose of

job search, intelwiews, employment, and specific treatment progrnmming needed outside thecenter. Note: This level is tlne lnighest ievel of achievement for Public Law and M ost SevereCategory offenders.

RESPONSIBILITIES-l . You must diligently search for employment Monday through Friday until you have

Seclâred en3ploynAelRt.


EX H IBIT 5


Fage 1 01 1Dismas Charities - Freshstart

* #*..%..*' I SM A S HA RITI ES

'k-Q) t-i-' -'Q, Home search Tasks Reports Administrationk- . - ? .....,sz

Traian BujduveanuAcnoN ReouesT DETAILSA

cmoN REoues'rsCASE Noas Stas Adams, Lashonda

CLIENT lNFo Client Bujduveanu, Traiancusxv svAv lNlo Number 3872

coxvAc'rs Requested 10/17/2010 9:17 AMCLIENT TAsKs Date

DlscHAnoE status completed

DRM NG INFO elease be kind a- nd provide a BP-9 Form.so-l can 5Ie it to the properReason '- .EMPLOYMENT authorities resppnsable for grievances. Thank You Traian Bujduveanu

' . . ' .- .

EMPLOYMENT SCHEDULE Previous Mr. Bujduveanu, unfortunately i was tlnable to obtain a BP-9 From. IFlxEo MoveMsNTs Responses will check with the Director to see if we have such form.

Adams. Lashonda 10/19/2010 9:42200 AMHOME CDNF. R

esponseMOVEMENT REoues'rs

OFFENSES

OPEN MOVEMENTS

PAYMENTS

PROGRAMS

csscxs l Save Reset cancel ReassignREQUIREDSmv us HlsToRY

StaslsTsNcs

SUMMARY

u- .//aonlo-comzovmraqhRksem eRidentscheduleWAcfoG eouesi/AcionRequex ev ls.u p... 9/7/201 1


Dismms Chazities - Freshstart Fage 1 01 1

@ @*..*..* I SM A S H A R ITI ES

:1k-2) r'il' UM Home searc: nsks Reports Administrationx- V -

Traian BujduveanuAcnoN RBQUESTS ACTION REQUEST DETAILS

CASE Noa s Staf gispert, ana

cueNT INFo Client Bujduveanu, TraianCUENT snwy INFo Number 3899

coxnwcTs Requested 10/19/2010 11:25 AMCLIENT TAsKs Date

DISCHARGE status compjetedDRMNG INFO n is Ietter is to advise you that today 10/19/2010,10:50 a ,m l was called toEMPLOYMENT the front desk and told that I should vacuum the room ''for him'r,in anEMPLOYME< ScHeouts attempt to intimidate me. Ms. Gispe ,!1 please be aware that as a result of

11 adbns aginst me for the last weekby Mr. n omas and his staftmyFIXED MoveMev s a

Reason Iiver has swallow anJ l do experience pain. nis has been a great upset toHOME CoNF. me

,and your staff members do not want to Ieave me in peace,and keep on

MoveMex'r REouEs'rs harrassing me,without any reason. Please be kind and provide me with a

OFFENSES BP-9 Form,so I can -sle-my grievancies ouYide of the sphere of this

oeEx MoveMexTs institution. Best Regards Tmian bujduveanuPAYMENTS Previous yOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN A DIRECTIVE TO VACUMN THE ROOM AS Apaoon us Responses SANCTION, EXTRA DUR , AND YOU REFUSED./ aNA GISPERT

gispert ana 1n/19J2p10 s:29:o0 PMREQUIRED CHK KS R

esponseS'rAmus Hlsloay

SuBslsTsNcE

SUMMARY

Save Reset Cancel l Reassign

u--.//aoolo-oomzovmmoohqks-m -qqaanlqnbadlpleq/ActionReouesi/AcéonReauesx eM ls.u p... 9/7/201 1


l'aYt l IJA 1Dism sq Charides - Freshstart

+e-.r-t DISM AS HARITIES

W- R ' ''Pf Home search Tasks Repoas Administrationl .,)i i........t tëEëëëjëjj'< -

Traian BujduveanuAcnox REouss'rs ACTION REQUEST DETAILS

CASE NoTes StaW gispert, ana

CUENT INFo Client Bujduveanu, Traiancusxv STAY INFO Number 3905

comwcms Requested 10/19/2010 4:39 PMCLIENT n sKs Date

DjscHAnos status completed .DRM NG INFO n is a request for a copy of ALL Shots issued to me or to my name by

EMPLOYMENT Dismas Charitiesjlnc. Staff members. Subse. q-tl-gntly I a-m requestino-tha-t

EMBLOYMENT ScHeoute Reason a BP-9 FofTn will be givert to me for each-one e.f tb e Shots issued to me

F/XED MovsMcvrs -O-r to my name,so l could 51e my grievan-ces.. l believe these are myConstitutional Rights,and they should be not denied. Best Regards Traian

HOME GoNF. BujduveanuMOVEMENT REoussTs Previous t

ransferredOFFENSES Responses gispert ana 1œ20/201() 4:26:p0 PMopEN MOVEMENTS Response

PAYMENTS

PRooM Ms

REOUIRED CHECKS

Slww s Hlsw Ry

SuBsls'reNce. Save Reset Canoel Reassign

StlMm av

h- '//asnis-qew arm reqbsGG esidentscheddes/Acéoe eluesl/AcfoG equeo eM ls.u p... 9/7/201 l


Dismms Chariées - Freshstart T fllu z. tzx *

***..*.

' *.C I SM A S H A R IT I E S

. . r ..- . x j myW i fJ..? x......

uk=k Home Search Tasks Reports Administration

Traian BujduveanuREouEsms AGTION REQUEST DETAILSA

cmoNcAsE No'res Sta' gispert ana

CLIENT INFO Client Bujduveanu, Traiancuewv sm y IMFo Number 3889

coxvAc'rs Requested 1o/18/201Q 10:53 AMcueNv n sxs Date

DISCHARGE Sltus CompletedDRM NG INFO This Ietter is to inform you that B.O.P. Regujations states that an IncidentEMPLOYMENT Report and a Consscation Slip should be provided to the prisoner within 24EMRLOYMENT SCHEDUUE hours of the incident. AIx an investigation should be carried outin the 5rst

Flxso MOVEMENTS 24 hours of the incidentby a body of people that have no knoledje of theincident and are neutral. Upon the sndings of this Neutral Commlssion.a

HOMB coNF. shot could be issued within 5rst 24 hour of the incidentif prisoner wasMovsMEN'r REouss'rs found to be guily. Today, when l have asked Mr. n omas and Ms. AdamsOFFENSES for a copy of the incident report and a copy of the O nsscation slip,l wasOPEN MOVEMENTS told that they would take me back to prison when 'They'' do thatand thatpAvxsxys Reason this is the Cristmas Gharities,lnc. and NOT the Bureau of Prisons. Please

note that the other day.when I have asked Mr. Thomas if dodor shouldPROGRAMS . js js n ehave a Iast say in a medic<l matter berevhe responded: 'ThREQUIRED CHECKS B o Ia and dodor does not have any say here. In Iight of aII of the above,lSTATUS HISTORY am kindly asking you to help me in this matter,as I am confused and do notsuBslslmNcs understand why my constitutional Rights are violated and why is is thatSUMMARy when l ask about my rights'l am being threatened with a ''Rwetum to

Prison''. if this issue cannot be resolved inhouse in an amicable wa ,then lkindly request a -9 orm,so I couild 5le m rievances outside of this

lns l Ion. est egards Traian BujduveanuPrevious Please read your handbook regarding conta band. Best regards./ Ana

Responses gispertgispert ana 10/19/20J0 527:00 PM

Response

I save Reset cancel aeassign

x--.//aooio-e-mrovmvechnts-m aqiaentqcbM zlles/ActioG ecuesl/Ach'onRequeo eY ls-- ... 9/7/201 1


Date post:	30-Jun-2015
Category:	Technology
Upload:	cocoselul-inaripat
View:	788 times
Download:	5 times

Plaintiff's response to defendant's motion for summary judgment,incoporated memorandum of law in...

Technology