Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Glen Thomas Dotson, Petitioner v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al.

22-

n

No.

IN THE

R LED

WAR 2 3 2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GLEN T. DOTSON

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; JOHN P.

CHRISTOPHER HALK; MIKE

YATF<? •

^WoNDENTfS)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

No.

22-3470

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH CIRCUIT

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Glen T. Dotson

(Your Name)

5025 Cote Brilliante St.

RECEIVED

MAY - 9 2023

(Address)

St. Louis, MO 63113

(City, State, Zip Code)

636 338-1450

(Phone Number)

RECEIVED

APR-3 2023

cmpoFME COURtTuS^

QUESTIONS) PRESENTED

Question:

Was Petitioner's First Amendment Right violated when he was

retaliated by Federal Bureau of Prisons staff for exercising

his right to pursue his lawsuit against them?

Question:

Was Petitioner's Eighth Amendment Right violated when the

Federal Bureau of Prisons staff failed to provide him medical

treatment during a hunger strike?

i.

LIST OF PARTIES

Hgi All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the eover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

RELATED CASES

Bitzan v. Buck, No. 17-3391 (8th Cir.).

Staszak v. USA, 2:20-CV-00138-KGB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181684

ii.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

PAGE NUMBER

CASES

Bitzan v. Buck, No. 17-3391 (8th

Gir.)

Santiago v. Blair, 707 F.3d 984, 993 (8th Cir. 2013)

Staszak v. USA, 2:20-cv-00138-KGB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181684

STATUTES AND RULES

First Amendment U.S. Constitution

Eighth Amendment U.S. Constitution

OTHER

iii.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

1

JURISDICTION

<2.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.........................................................

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.......................................

5* h

CONCLUSION..................

8

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A ; Eighth Circuit Judgment

APPENDIX B : Eighth Circuit Rehearing denial

APPENDIX C: Bitzan v. Bartruff No. 17-3391 (8th Cir.)

APPENDIX D: Staszak v. USA, 2:20-cv-00138-KGB, 2021 U.S. Dist

LEXIS 181684

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

iv.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

^^For cases from federal courts:

CL

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix 2=__to

the petition and is

^^reported at Bit-y.an v Bartruff. No 17-3301 (Sl-h Cir); or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

J><f reported at Staszak v. USA U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181684 • or,

[ has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

J2_to

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix----- to the petition and is

; or,

{ ] reported at

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the _

appears at Appendix

court

to the petition and is

; or,

[ ] reported at

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

1.

JURISDICTION

[ ] For eases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was LfaVltapy c?.

JJC

.

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

1)4 A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date: /S&eartjey

3.02*3 } and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix ^

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including

■

(date) on

(date)

in Application No.__ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix_______

[ 1 A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

---------------------- --------- , and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appeals at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including ____

(date) on

(date)in

Application No.__ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

3L.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

First & Eighth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution

Bitzan v. Buck, No. 17-3391 (8th Cir.)

3.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Petitioner, Glen T. Dotson, (Petitioner), brings his Writ

before this Stipreme Court to address his two questions.

Was Petitioner's

First and Eighth Amendment Rights violated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons

and members of its staff when Petitioner suffered irreparable harms, as c

lack of proper medical care during a hunger strike, and further being

retaliated by FBOP staff to move to another unit that was gross and

inhumane conditions because Petitioner filed his complaints,

Petitioner

suffered nearly passing out as a result of no medical treatment from the

lack of food intake during a hunger strike at the FCC Forrest City prison

from October 20, 2021 through October 24, 2021.

FBOP staff refused to

provide Petitioner any medical treatment during this time.

Once Petitioner began filing his complaints about the Mass

Punishment of the inmate population and the hunger strike his counselor

Christopher Halk cordinated with Mike Danaher a case manager to have

Petitoner moved to another unit that was inhumane with conditions of

exposed outlets, leaking pipes, non-working toliets, lights that were out,

doors not functional, non-working urinals, non-working computer screens,

non-working showers, lack of hot water from August to September 2021,

batroom covered in mold and mildrew from lack of cleaning supplies and a

sub-standard and at times non-working HVAC system.

During this course of

time. Warden John P. Yates was the overseer of FCC Forrest City-Low

facility.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Starting on September -18, 2021, Petitioner was denied his

right to recreation in its entirety, (meaning no indoor or outdoor recreation for one-hour per day), due to Mass Punishment being enforced by the

Cpmplex Warden John P. Yates.

Petitioner was further retaliated against

and punished by not being able to work at his prison job located at the

FCC recreation depatment because Petitioner had begun filing his admin­

istrative remedy process due to the Mass Punishment.

Petitioner during

this time was living in gross and inhumane conditions located within his

unit in which he had filed a complaint against,

These conditions were

exposed power outlets, leaking pipes, non-working toliets, lights out,

doors not functional, non-working urinals, non-working computer screens,

non-working showers, lack of hot water (for nearly 45-days), mildew, mold,

lack of cleaning materials and supplies, rust everywhere on metal surfaces,

HVAC system not working properly and maintained.

Due to all these inhumane

conditions the inmates of FCC Forrest City went on a "Hunger Strike."

The

inmates (to include Petitioner) were enduring retaliation by staff to

such as Petitioner's retaliation against him by the Respondents,

Petitioner

endured living ina state of filth throughout his incarceration at FCC

Forrest City-Low.

The Hunger Strike was a measure by the inmate population

to draw attention to higher authorities concerning the sub-human style

conditions that were clear Eighth Amendment violations against Petitioner.

Petitioner suffered great harm during the hunger strike period

of having little to no food in his locker in preparation for a Hunger

Strike, where Petitioner suffered light-headed and low blood sugar symptoms

nearly passing out from the lack of medical attention and hunger pains from

5.

from no food.

Petitioner was placed into a situation that the Respondent's

administration lost control, i.e., that Petitioner had no access to food due

to the overwhelming inducment placed on him by the other remaining inmates

to not eat.

Petitioner went four days without eating, because the Respondent

lost control of the prison.

On April 12, 2022, Petitioner was ordered to pack up and leave his

assigned unit located at H-C and to move to W-A located at FCC Forrest CityLow.

See App'x C & App'x D as supporting Memorandum of Law.

This move was

a direct act of retaliation against Petitioner by the Respondents for

Petitioner's "non-stop filings and [my] injunction....", according to

Respondent Halk whom cordinated the retalitory move with Respondent

Danaher.

This action against Petitioner happened shortly after he wrote a

letter to U.S. District Court Judge Brian S. Miller complainingof the illegal

acts recently committed by Respondent Danaher concerning legal information

that was sensitive and scanned into Respondent Danaher's computer.

There

are numerous sworn statement thereof attesting to these facts in Case No.

2:21-cv-00147-BSM surrounding the acts and events that occurred.

After the retaliatory move by the Respondents, Petitioner was placed

into a unit that had been "condemned" with the following conditions:

one

working toliet for nearly 40 men, no ice machine (not working), no televisions,

no working computers and charging stations, no working exit signs, leaking

water and sewage pipes, urinals not working (only two) for nearly 40 men,

lack of cleaning supplies (no brooms, mops, cleaners, trash bags, etc.).

The retaliatory move of Petitioner was planned by the Respondents

to punish Petitioner for his continued exercises of his access to the

&

administration and the Courts by Petitioner's filings and letters.

Petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to argue his case by the

lower court due to that no response was ordered by the lower court to the

Respondents.

Petitioner has suffered text book examples of retaliation and

cruel and unusual punishment by the Respondents,

The Respondents are not

being held per the law.as in Bitzan (App'x C).

Petitioner further met the

threshold in Santiago v. Blair, 707 F.3d 984, 993 (8th Cir. 2013)(defendant

may defend retaliatory discipline claim by showing "some evidence" inmate

actually committed rule violation).

Petitioner was clearly punished and

retaliated by the Respondents due to his filing of his court documents.

z