Henry v. Co#2 Gilara

SIDDEEQ BASIL HENRY, Plaintiff, v. CO#2 GILARA, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 16-167ERIE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

August 9, 2017

Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter

MEMORANDUM OPINION¹

I. Background

A. Introduction

Plaintiff Siddeeq Basil Henry ("Henry") brings this prisoner civil rights action against CO#2 Gilara ("Gilara"), CO#1 Mohney ("Mohney"), Unit Manager Blicha ("Blicha"), Major Ireland ("Ireland"), and Superintendent Overmyer ("Overmyer") (collectively "Defendants").

In his amended complaint, Henry contends Gilara violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by contaminating his dinner tray four consecutive days. (Docket No. 20 ¶ 61). Henry alleges that after he complained about Gilara's conduct, Gilara retaliated against him with sexually themed insults, conduct that he alleges violates his First and Eighth Amendment rights. (Id. ¶¶ 63-64, 66). Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that Mohney and Blicha conspired with Gilara to contaminate his dinner trays. (Id. ¶¶ 62, 65). Allegedly, Ireland violated the Prison Rape Elimination Act ("PREA"), (id. ¶ 67), while Overmyer ignored "Plaintiff[']s constant call for help when he had personal knowledge of allincidents," making him liable as a supervisor. (Id. ¶ 68). Plaintiff seeks to enforce his constitutional rights through 28 U.S.C. § 1983.

Defendants move for dismissal on several grounds.² Defendants Gilara and Mohney argue that Henry did not state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for contaminated food because he did not allege the food injured him. (Docket No. 22 at 5-6). Henry's conspiracy claim should fail as a matter of law because he did not state an adequate underlying Eighth Amendment violation by Gilara and made only bald, conclusory allegations that Mohney and Blicha entered into a conspiracy with Henry. (Id. at 7-8; Docket No. 32 at 6). Henry's retaliation claim against Gilara is insufficient because it lacks specificity. (Docket No. 22 at 8-9). Ireland argues that the claim against her should be dismissed because the PREA contains no private right of action and Overmyer defends against Henry's supervisory liability claim by pointing out that he cannot be liable on a respondeat superior basis. (Docket No. 32 at 4, 7-8).

After considering Henry's amended complaint (Docket No. 20), Defendants' briefs in support of their motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 22, 32), and Henry's briefs opposing Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 26, 36), the Court will grant Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 21, 31) and will dismiss all of Henry's claims against Defendants with prejudice. In addition, Gilara's and Mohney's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (Docket No. 12) Henry's original complaint (Docket No. 4) will be denied as moot.

B. Plaintiff's Allegations

On February 26, 2016, prison officials at SCI Forest placed Henry in K-Block, a restrictive housing unit ("RHU"), because he allegedly assaulted two corrections officers.(Docket No. 20 ¶ 10). The next day, Plaintiff claims Gilara personally served him a dinner tray, laughing and telling him to "enjoy my special sauce bitch," which sauce was a "brownish liquid that smelled like chewing tobacco." (Id. ¶¶ 12-14). A similar incident is alleged to have occurred on February 28, 2016, when Gilara separately served Henry's dinner tray with a "brownish liquid that smelled like chewing tobacco, balls of hair and dirt" in his food, remarking "that's from my buddy you punched." (Id. ¶¶ 15-17). The following day, February 29, 2016, Plaintiff claims Mohney served the other RHU inmates, but passed Henry, explaining "Gilara has your special tray." (Id. ¶¶ 18-20). Gilara later brought a tray to Henry from outside the RHU and allegedly repeated his "special sauce" remark from two days before. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22). Plaintiff claims the tray again contained "a brownish liquid that smelled like chewing tobacco." (Id. ¶ 23). Finally, Gilara allegedly remarked to "let [him] know if [his dinner] tastes funny" after personally serving Plaintiff's tray on March 1, 2016. (Id. ¶¶ 24-26). This time Henry claims the tray contained the brown liquid that tasted like chewing tobacco as well as a "thick yellowish green glob of mucus." (Id. ¶ 27). Henry alleges that he was unable to properly consume his dinner from February 27, 2016, through March 1, 2016. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 15, 18, 24, 28).

Plaintiff also claims that Gilara's improper interactions with him extended beyond food trays. Henry claims that Gilara called him a "big faggot" and insinuated that Henry was kicked out of his last jail because Henry fought his lover (id. ¶ 31), that Gilara told Henry that "me and my buddies will ejaculate into a cup so you could drink it, (id. ¶ 32)" asked Henry if he ever allowed a horse to anally penetrate him or if he ever orally copulated with a dog (id.), and told his coworkers that Henry has AIDS because Henry is homosexual. (Id. ¶ 33). In response, Henry filed a complaint under the Prison Rape Elimination Act ("PREA") with the Pennsylvania State Police. (Id. ¶ 34).

In addition, Henry filled out a Form DC-135A (inmate request to staff member) and sent it to SCI Forest Superintendent Overmyer requesting that he be moved from the RHU to another housing block, J-Unit, listing the dates and times he received allegedly contaminated food. (Docket No. 20-1 at 1). Plaintiff alleges Gilara continued verbally harassing him even after he entered J-Unit, by saying on June 13, 2016, "you know you are gay, so don't act cool in front of these guys" as well as "you know you like it rough." (Id. ¶¶ 35-36). Henry filed another PREA complaint against Gilara with PREA Coordinator Ireland, but Ireland did not investigate Henry's PREA complaint. (Id. ¶ ¶ 37, 38). Four days later, while Blicha visited, Henry claims he asked him why he did not prevent Henry's food trays from being contaminated in the RHU. (Id. ¶ 40). Blicha allegedly asked "how did his spit taste" and added "you are lucky that's all you got after you assaulted staff." (Id. ¶¶ 41, 43).

II. Standards of Review

A. Pro Se Litigants

Pro se pleadings, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). If the court can reasonably read pleadings to state a valid claim on which the litigant could prevail, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or a litigant's unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364 (1982); United States ex rel. Montgomery v. Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969) (petition prepared by a prisoner may be inartfully drawn and should be read "with a measure of tolerance"); Smith v. U.S. District Court, 956 F.2d 647 (7th Cir. 1992); Freeman v. Dep't of Corr., 949 F.2d 360 (10th Cir. 1991). Under our liberal pleading rules, during the initial stages of litigation, a district court should construe all allegations in a complaintin favor of the complainant. Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 311 (3d Cir. 2001). See, e.g., Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard); Markowitz v. Ne. Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1990) (same). Because Henry is a pro se litigant, this Court may consider facts and make inferences where it is appropriate.

B. Rule 12(b)(6)

A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and the complaint's well-pleaded allegations must be accepted as true. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). A complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) if it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (rejecting the traditional 12(b)(6) standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (specifically applying Twombly analysis beyond the context of the Sherman Act).

A court need not accept inferences drawn by a plaintiff if they are unsupported by the facts set forth in the complaint. See California Pub. Emps'. Ret. Sys. v. The Chubb Corp., 394 F.3d 126, 146 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997)). Nor must the court accept legal conclusions set forth as factual allegations. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)); see also McTernan v. City of York, Pa., 577 F.3d 521, 531 (3d Cir. 2009) ("The tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions."). A plaintiff's factual allegations "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (citing 5 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1216, pp. 235-36 (3d ed. 2004)). Although the United StatesSupreme Court does "not require heightened pleading of specifics, [the Court does require] enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570.

In other words, at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff is "required to make a 'showing' rather than a blanket assertion of an entitlement to relief." Smith v. Sullivan, No. 07-528, 2008 WL 482469, at *1 (D. Del. Feb. 19, 2008) (quoting Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008)). "This 'does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage,' but instead 'simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of' the necessary element." Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 n.3).

The Third Circuit has expounded on the Twombly/Iqbal line of cases. To determine the sufficiency of...