United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
Christopher Sanders, pro se.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K. Johnstone United States Magistrate Judge.
Christopher Sanders, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,
has filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1), pursuant to Bivens v.
Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
and the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), alleging
violations of his rights while he was a prisoner at the
Federal Correctional Institution, Berlin, New Hampshire
("FCI-Berlin") .Sanders has also filed what appear to
be: a handwritten copy of a letter from the Department of
Justice concerning an administrative tort claim Sanders filed
with that agency (Doc. No. 14) and a handwritten copy of a
letter from a federal court in Florida accompanied by a
memorandum of law (Doc. No. 17). This court considers the
factual assertions in Document Nos. 14 and 17 to be part of
the complaint in this case. This matter is before the court
for preliminary review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5A(a)
and LR 4.3(d) (1) .
determining whether a pro se pleading states a claim, for the
purposes of this court's preliminary review of prisoner
pleadings under 28 U.S.C. § l9l5A(a), the court
construes the pleading liberally. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Disregarding any legal
conclusions, the court considers whether the factual content
in the pleading and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom,
taken as true, state a claim to relief. Hernandez-Cuevas
v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
alleges that while he was incarcerated at FCI-Berlin, hygiene
supplies distributed to inmates in the Secure Housing Unit
("SHU") burned his skin. Construing Sanders's
complaint generously, it appears that Sanders seeks to sue
the person "in charge of the supplies that's been
giving [sic] to us inmates in SHU at FCI Berlin."
Sanders then goes on to state, however, that other than the
person "in charge" of providing SHU inmates with
hygiene supplies, FCI-Berlin staff members are not
responsible for the harm he alleges he suffered from the
Claims Against Officer "In Charge"
assert a claim alleging that conditions of his confinement
have violated his constitutional rights, Sanders must assert
facts to show that a federal officer was deliberately
indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to Sanders,
and disregarded that risk. See Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 828-29 (1994) . Sanders has not asserted facts
suggesting that any FCI-Berlin officer or employee was aware
of the harm to Sanders caused by the hygiene products
provided to him at that facility, or otherwise failed to take
reasonable responsive action to the harm alleged.
Accordingly, Sanders has failed to state a constitutional
claim upon which relief might be granted, and his Bivens
claim against the officer "in charge" should be
Claims Against Manufacturers/Distributors
intending to bring suit against the manufacturers and/or
distributors of the pertinent hygiene products, Sanders asks
the court to provide him with information to assist him in
filing such an action. The court does not research potential
claims or defendants on behalf of litigants. Sanders has not
pleaded the minimum facts needed to state claims within this
court's original jurisdiction against the manufacturers
and/or distributors of the hygiene products in question in
his complaint here. Accordingly, any claims Sanders may have
intended to assert in this action against those ...