United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
JAMES W. BOLT PLAINTIFF
ROBERT CESSARIO, Federal Bureau of Investigation; KYRA E. JENNER, Assistant United States Attorney; and MARK W. WEBB, Assistant United States Attorney DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff, James W. Bolt,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro
se and in forma pauperis. The case is before
the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has the
obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of
a governmental entity.
filed his Complaint on April 9, 2019. (Doc. 1). His
application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted
on May 17, 2019. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff is currently
incarcerated in the Fort Worth Federal Medical Center in Fort
named Robert Cessario, an agent with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (“FBI”), and Kyra E. Jenner and
Mark W. Webb, Assistant United States Attorneys, as
Defendants in his Complaint. He alleges they conspired with
each other to deprive Plaintiff of substantive and procedural
due process, meaningful access to the United States Courts,
and effective assistance of counsel during a 28 U.S.C. §
2255 proceeding which is currently on appeal before the
Eighth Circuit. See United States v. Bolt, No.
5:13-CR-50085 (habeas case). Plaintiff sets forth six claims
in his Complaint.
Claim One, Plaintiff alleges on or about March 16, 2017,
Defendants Cessario, Jenner, and Webb “created a civil
conspiracy to deny Plaintiff's right to habeas corpus
relief” by intentionally violating an order from the
District Court regarding the production of physical and
electronic evidence. (Doc. 1 at 12). As part of the
conspiracy, Plaintiff claims Defendants Jenner and Webb filed
“spurious” court pleadings, made false,
fraudulent and misleading statements to Plaintiff's
counsel, and provided his counsel with altered, edited and
redacted discovery data in an effort to “lull”
Plaintiff's counsel from seeking sanctions. Plaintiff
claims these actions impaired and prejudiced his counsel in
the performance of his duties and “constitute the tort
of outrage under Arkansas state law.” (Doc. 1 at 13).
Claim Two, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Cessario, between
December 19, 2016, and mid-September 2017 (the date of the
evidentiary hearing in the § 2255 case), violated the
Court's discovery orders, which “in turn violated
the rights of the plaintiff . . . to due process and the
privilege of habeas corpus by concealing information he was
directed to provide . . .” Id. at p. 14.
Claim Three, Plaintiff claims Defendant Cessario
“violated the court's specific orders . . . by
falsely stating that there were no records in the FBI data
management systems as to [various undercover FBI attorneys]
while being in possession of the required information . . .
.” Id. at p. 15.
Claim Four, Plaintiff states Defendant Cessario violated
Plaintiff's due process rights and the privilege of
habeas corpus by “first obtaining unredacted corporate
and financial records related to various FBI undercover
corporate entities and agents . . . then altering redacting .
. . such records, using FBI owned data processing equipment
[laptop].” Id. at 16.
Claim Five, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Cessario, Jenner,
and Webb “made a series of false, untrue, misleading
and incomplete statements” to his attorney, Joseph
Self, to “lull” him into inaction in advance of
the September 2017 evidentiary hearing on the discovery
issues before the Court. Id. Plaintiff goes on to
state, “it was the purpose of these misleading
statements to conceal their actual intent of completely
non-complying with discovery items 24, 25 and especially 26 .
. . of the court's December 19, 2016 discovery
order.” Id. Plaintiff also alleges that during
this timeframe, Defendant Cessario “in an effort to
conceal his misconduct . . . did wipe his FBI laptop hard
drive in such a means . . . as to conceal his and the other
defendant's misconduct.” Id. at p. 16.
Claim Six, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Cessario, Jenner, and
Webb “intended to cause spoliation of evidence that
they were under court order to preserve and produce to
plaintiff.” He states these actions were “done
under the color of law” and “calculated and
intended to conceal their own pervasive misconduct.”
Id. at p. 18.
is suing Defendants in their individual capacities only
pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). He is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages.
the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to
service of process being issued. The Court must dismiss a
complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that:
(1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or, (2) seek monetary ...