Jacobs v. Dist. Attorney's Office

ANDRE JACOBS, Plaintiff v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants

No. 1:10-cv-02622

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

March 19, 2018

(Judge Kane)

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Andre Jacobs ("Plaintiff"), an inmate currently incarcerated at the Albion State Correctional Institution in Pennsylvania ("SCI-Albion"), initiated this civil rights action on December 22, 2010, by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint. (Doc. Nos. 144, 148, 155, 161.) All motions have been fully briefed and are ripe now for disposition.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff's initial complaint named over one-hundred Defendants, primarily officials and employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC"). (Doc. No. 1.) The allegations included a large number of claims that spanned Plaintiff's confinement at different state prisons in Pennsylvania,¹ beginning in November of 2008 and continuing up until the filing of this action in late December of 2010. Service of the complaint was directed, and four (4) separate groups of Defendants filed motions to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 27, 43, 47, 59.) Plaintiff then filed a motion to amend/correct the complaint (Doc. No. 69), which this Court granted onSeptember 18, 2012. (Doc. No. 76.) The Court also denied Defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice. (Id.)

On January 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 83.) Thereafter, three groups of the original Defendants filed motions to dismiss and/or strike the amended complaint as improper and in violation of the Court's September 18, 2012 Order. (Doc. Nos. 84, 87, 95.) On September 30, 2013, Defendants' motions were granted and Plaintiff's amended complaint was stricken from the record. (Doc. No. 103.) However, the Court afforded Plaintiff twenty days to submit a proper second amended complaint. (Id.)

On March 6, 2014, after the Court granted Plaintiff an enlargement of time to file a second amended complaint (Doc. Nos. 104, 105), Plaintiff submitted a proposed second amended complaint (Doc. No. 113). Defendants subsequently filed a motion to strike (Doc. No. 114), and a motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 116). On August 7, 2014, the Court granted Defendants' motion to strike the second amended complaint, denied the motion to dismiss filed by some of the other Defendants as moot, and after reviewing the factors set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1994), dismissed Plaintiff's original complaint for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk to close the case. (Doc. No. 126.) Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal on August 21, 2014. (Doc. No. 127.)

On October 17, 2014, the Court received a certified Order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in lieu of a formal mandate, dismissing Plaintiff's appeal for failure to pay fees. (Doc. No. 129.) On November 23, 2015, the Third Circuit reinstated the appeal. (Doc. No. 131.) Subsequently, the Third Circuit vacated this Court's August 7, 2014 Order that dismissed Plaintiff's original complaint and remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings. The Third Circuit remanded the case to provide the Plaintiff "one moreopportunity to amend his complaint[.]" Jacobs v. District Attorney of Luzerne Cnty., 659 F. App'x 107, 110 (3d Cir. 2016).

This Court then conditionally granted Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel and stayed the case for thirty days to afford the Chair of the Federal Bar Association's Pro Bono Committee an opportunity to locate counsel for Plaintiff. On March 6, 2017, the thirty-day period elapsed and no counsel entered an appearance on behalf of Plaintiff. Accordingly, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in accordance with the directions provided to him by its Memorandum dated September 30, 2013. (Doc. No. 142.)

B. Allegations of Amended Complaint

1. Allegations Pertaining to Plaintiff's Confinement at SCI-Fayette

On April 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Doc. No. 143), again naming well over one hundred Defendants.² Plaintiff alleges that on November 24, 2008, he was awarded $185,000 in damages after prevailing in a civil suit against the Department of Corrections ("DOC"). (Doc. No. 143 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff therefore claims that supervisory Defendants Wetzel, Johnson, Moore-Smeal, and Varner identified him as a threat to the prison establishment and openly encouraged all other Defendants to retaliate against him. (Id. ¶ 4.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that within days of returning to SCI-Fayette from his trial, he was issued fabricated misconducts and prevented from applying for parole in retaliation for his verdict against the DOC. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges that there was a "campaign and conspiracy"set forth by these supervisory Defendants and put in place by all other Defendants to issue fabricated misconduct reports in order to thwart Plaintiff's legal actions. (Id. ¶ 7.)

Moreover, Plaintiff claims that after he had rejected the DOC's $25,000 offer to settle his previous lawsuit, Leggett approached his cell and stated to Plaintiff that he "should have accepted the settlement" from the "AG's office and Beard[,]" and that as a result, Plaintiff would be designated for confinement in punitive segregation indefinitely. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff next avers that he was formally processed to be "blacklisted for indefinite confinement in punitive segregation," which was processed by Johnson and ultimately approved by Beard. (Id. ¶ 11.) He was then allegedly placed on the Restricted Release List ("RRL"), in retaliation for prevailing in his lawsuit. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 15.)

Plaintiff maintains that as part of this conspiracy, he was issued misconduct reports for filing grievances. (Id. ¶ 17.) Specifically, he states that when he filed a grievance against Leggett, Leggett issued him a misconduct in retaliation for filing the grievance. (Id. ¶¶ 15-17.) Plaintiff subsequently appeared before Cross on Leggett's retaliatory misconduct and was denied his timely requests for evidence and witnesses at the hearing. (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff alleges that when he informed Cross that Leggett's misconduct report was issued directly in response to his grievance and was therefore retaliatory, Cross made Plaintiff leave the room where Cross then called someone on the phone. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22.) When Plaintiff reentered the room, Cross allegedly stated, "you're smart but my resources say we can get around it. I'm finding you guilty and sentencing you to 60 days consecutive." (Id. ¶ 22.)

Plaintiff alleges that in furtherance of Defendants' conspiracy to retaliate against him for prevailing in his lawsuit against the DOC, Defendants Vojacek, Leggett, Collins, Beard, Johnson, Moore-Smeal, Varner, and Coleman, pressured Plaintiff into accepting a settlement andobstructed his ability to defend against the DOC's appeal in his civil case. (Id. ¶ 28.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Vojacek, Leggett, and Collins plotted and agreed to steal "two-thousand - plus page[s] of incoming legal packages from the law firm Lambert & Martineau, containing work product, copies of filings intended for the court and related materials directly for the lawsuit Plaintiff won." (Id. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff alleges that Collins approached his cell and stated that "Leggett said you're not getting your legal mail until you sign off on the grievances you filed against him" and then fabricated official documents to provide that Plaintiff's legal mail was confiscated because Plaintiff "refused to sign" for it. (Id. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff alleges that he was then transferred to SCI-Dallas to serve his RRL sanction. (Id. ¶ 33.)

2. Allegations Pertaining to Plaintiff's Confinement at SCI-Dallas

Plaintiff alleges that as a result of his $185,000 verdict against the DOC, Defendants Beard, Coleman, Johnson, and Moore-Smeal intended for the "campaign of harassment and retaliation against Plaintiff to continue at SCI-Dallas. (Id. ¶ 35.) Within days of arriving at SCI-Dallas, Plaintiff alleges that he, along with a number of other inmates, filed grievances against the prison guards for the manner in which they made the prisoners quickly consume their food. (Id. ¶ 36.) Plaintiff alleges that he was labeled as the "ring-leader" for these grievances and told by Defendants Bliech, Robowleski, and Sgt. Buck not to file grievances and that they specifically referenced his lawsuit. (Id. ¶ 37.) Plaintiff also alleges that these Defendants began to deny him showers, food, and outside exercise in retaliation for his verdict against the DOC. (Id. ¶ 38.)

Plaintiff alleges that when Defendants Zakarauckus and Miller were assigned to investigate Plaintiff's claim that he was a target because of his verdict against the DOC, these Defendants conspired with one another to fabricate investigative reports, destroy video footage,and fail to interview witnesses that Plaintiff identified. (Id. ¶¶ 40, 41.) Moreover, at Plaintiff's RRL status hearing, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Walsh, Demming, and Brittain informed Plaintiff that a condition of him being released from RRL status was that he cease filing grievances. (Id. ¶ 43.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Lucas sent him a notice restricting Plaintiff from submitting any further grievances. (Id. ¶¶ 45-47.)

Plaintiff next alleges that he was visited by Human Relations Council ("HRC"), Investigator Bret Grote on September 10, 2009. (Id. ¶ 48.) Plaintiff avers that within minutes after the visit, Defendants Buck and Bliech retaliated against him by depriving him food, water and showers for "bringing HRC to the prison" and placed Plaintiff on a food diet. (Id. ¶ 48.) Plaintiff alleges that on October 29, 2009, while he was being moved to another cell and his hands were cuffed behind his back, he was assaulted by Defendants Elmore and Mccoy, and...