Castle v. Clymer

15 F.Supp.2d 640

Franklin CASTLE v. Raymond CLYMER, Jr., Deputy Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; John Stepanik, Superintendent, S.C.I.-Dallas; and, David Larkins, Deputy Superintendent S.C.I.-Dallas, each of whom is sued in his individual and official capacity with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Civil Action No. 95-2407.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

June 30, 1998.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Stefan Presser, David Rudofsky, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff.

Francis Filipi, Harrisburg, PA, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

DuBOIS, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
  I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 644
 II. FINDINGS OF FACT .................................................................. 645
     A. Background ..................................................................... 645
     B. Austin Prison Class Litigation ........................................ 646
     C. L.I.F.E. Association ........................................................... 647
     D. Plaintiff's Times Leader Interview, Plaintiff's Two Letters to the Times
Leader, and Defendants' Response to the Interview and Letters ............. 649
     E. Publication of the Times Leader Article ........................................ 653
     F. Transfer of Plaintiff-Action Taken by Defendants ............................... 654
     G. Other Alleged Bases for the Transfer ........................................... 655
        1. Bases Alleged by Plaintiff: Legal Assistance To Other Inmates and
               Extensive Use of Grievance System ....................................... 655
        2. Bases Alleged by Defendants ................................................. 655
           a. Threats to Plaintiff's Safety ............................................ 656
              i. Correctional Officers ................................................. 656
              ii. Other Inmates ........................................................ 656
           b. Deputy Superintendent Larkins' Safety .................................... 656
     H. Reasons for Transfer - Discussion .............................................. 656
        1. The Austin Litigation ....................................................... 656
        2. Participation in the L.I.F.E. Association ................................... 657
        3. Plaintiff's Communications with the Times Leader ............................ 657
        4. Other Bases for Transfer .................................................... 657
           a. Bases Alleged by Plaintiff: Legal Assistance To Other Inmates and
                  Extensive Use of Grievance System .................................... 657
           b. Bases Alleged by Defendants .............................................. 658
              i. Plaintiff's Safety .................................................... 658
                 (a) Correctional Officers ............................................. 658
                 (b) Other Inmates ..................................................... 658
              ii. Deputy Superintendent Larkins' Safety ................................ 658
        5. The Role of Each Defendant in Plaintiff's Transfer .......................... 659
           a. Deputy Commissioner Clymer ............................................... 659
           b. Superintendent Stepanik .................................................. 659
           c. Deputy Superintendent Larkins ............................................ 659
        6. Conclusion .................................................................. 659
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSION ................................................. 660
     A. Introduction ................................................................... 660
     B. The Substantive Constitutional Right Implicated By the Transfer ................ 660

     C. Standards for Analyzing the Constitutionality of Transfers Allegedly in
            Retaliation for Inmate's Exercise of Constitutional Rights ................. 661
     D. The Substantive Constitutional Right Allegedly Violated: Freedom of
            Speech ..................................................................... 662
        1. Outgoing Correspondence ..................................................... 662
     E. Procedural Due Process Rights Allegedly Violated: Approval of the Times
Leader Interview and Activities as President of the L.I.F.E. Association ... 663
     F. Standard for Analyzing Alleged Procedural Due Process Violations ............... 663
     G. Analyzing the Alleged Procedural Due Process Violations ........................ 664
        1. The Times Leader Interview .................................................. 664
        2. Plaintiff's Activities as President of the L.I.F.E. Association ............. 665
     H. The Transfer was Unconstitutional .............................................. 666
     I. Qualified Immunity ............................................................. 667
 IV. RELIEF ............................................................................ 667
     A. Relief Requested By Plaintiff .................................................. 667
     B. Relief That Will Be Granted .................................................... 668
  V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 669

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Franklin Castle, a prisoner in the Pennsylvania State Correctional System, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants were at all times material to this action employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("D.O.C.").¹ The gravamen of the Complaint is that defendants transferred plaintiff from State Correctional Institution ("SCI")-Dallas to SCI-Smithfield in 1995 in violation of his rights under the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4).

Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that defendants transferred him in retaliation for his role as an active class representative in the case of Austin v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 876 F.Supp. 1437 (1995),² and his verbal and written statements to a newspaper reporter during and following an interview authorized by authorities at SCI-Dallas. Complaint, at ¶¶ 36, 37. Although not mentioned in the Complaint, at trial plaintiff presented evidence that his transfer was also based upon his activities as President of the L.I.F.E. Association³ at SCI-Dallas. In addition, at trial plaintiff alleged two other bases for his transfer: 1) his assistance of other inmates with legal issues and 2) his extensive use of the internal grievance system at SCI-Dallas.

Defendants argue that plaintiff was not transferred because "he communicated with the media or because he advocated on behalf of other inmates." Defendants' Pretrial Memorandum, at 2. Instead, defendants contend that plaintiff was transferred to "sever Mr. Castle's power base at this facility and avert a potential disturbance which may cause harm to staff and inmates." Exh. P-10. Specifically, defendants cite four allegedly permissible reasons for the transfer: 1) as President of the L.I.F.E. Association plaintiff was "manipulating management of an internal organization," Defendants' Pretrial Memorandum, at 2, 2) plaintiff made "veiled threats" in an interview in response to then Governor-elect Ridge's proposed changes in the availability of certain amenities and programs at state correctional institutions, id., 3) plaintiff was in danger from correctional officers and other inmates, and was transferred for his own protection, Tr. of July 10, 1996, at 37-41, and 4) Deputy Superintendent Larkins of SCI-Dallas feared that plaintiff was a risk to his safety.

After a non-jury trial, and based on the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court finds in favor of plaintiff on some, but not all, of his claims. The Court will issue a declaratory judgment that plaintiff's transfer was unconstitutional and will award compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages and an injunction ordering officials at SCI-Smithfield to return him to single-cell status and to hire him as a para-law library clerk will be denied. The Court's findings of fact are set forth in Section II, infra. The Court's conclusions of law are included in its discussion of the legal issues in Section III, infra.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. Background

1. Plaintiff Franklin Castle was committed to the custody of the D.O.C. on October 29, 1975 to serve a life sentence for second degree murder. While incarcerated at SCI-Huntingdon in 1977, plaintiff received a second life sentence for an assault against a corrections officer.⁴ In addition, plaintiff has been sentenced to two ninety-nine year terms and one twenty year term of incarceration in Virginia for two homicides and a burglary, and a life sentence for second degree murder in North Carolina. Transcript ("Tr.") of July 9, 1996, at 16-17. Plaintiff was transferred to SCI-Dallas on April 6, 1978.

2. Defendant Raymond E. Clymer, Jr. was appointed Deputy Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, for the Eastern Region of Pennsylvania in September 1990. Upon the resignation of Commissioner Joseph D. Lehman on January 17, 1995, Deputy Commissioner Clymer became Acting Commissioner, a position he held until March 1, 1995.

3. Defendant John R. Stepanik served as Superintendent of SCI-Dallas, initially in an acting capacity, effective January 1, 1992. Superintendent Stepanik retired from that position effective December 31, 1995.

4. Defendant David H. Larkins served as Deputy Superintendent for Operations at...