Jones v. Boone

1

SHAWN JONES, Plaintiff, v. SGT. BOONE, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-01977

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

March 17, 2023

MEMORANDUM

MEHALCHICK, M.J.

This is a civil rights action initiated upon the filing of the complaint by Plaintiff, Shawn Jones (“Jones”) against Sergeant Boone (“Sgt. Boone”) and Corrections Officer Smitty (C.O. Smitty) (collectively “Defendants”), on November 19, 2021. (Doc. 1). In his complaint, Jones asserts claims under 42 U.S.C § 1983, alleging that (1) Defendants denied him medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and (2) retaliated against him for disrespecting Nurse Stallman by allowing an inmate to attack him in his cell and filing a false misconduct charge. (Doc. 1, at 4). As relief, Jones seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Doc. 1, at 5). On February 14, 2022 Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. (Doc. 10). On February 24, 2022, the parties consented to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 12).

Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Jones and Defendants. (Doc. 16; Doc. 22). For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED and Jones's cross-motion for summary judgment will be DENIED.

I. Background and Procedural History

This factual background is taken from Defendants' statements of material facts. (Doc. 17). Jones has failed to file a response or a separate statement of material facts pursuant to Local Rule 56.1. Because Jones is proceedings pro se and the Court is required to liberally construe his pleadings, the Court will, to the best of its ability, review the record to assess Jones's assertions stated in his motion for summary judgment and briefs in opposition as they relate to Defendants' statement of facts. (Doc. 18; Doc. 22; Doc. 23; Doc. 24; Doc. 25; Doc. 26); see, e.g.,Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-46 (3d Cir. 2013). Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, the Court accepts as true all undisputed material facts supported by the record. Where the record evinces a disputed fact, the Court will take notice. In addition, the facts have been taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party with respect to each motion.

A. Procedural History

On November 19, 2021, Jones initiated this action by filing a pro se complaint alleging claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). on February 14, 2022, Defendants filed an answer to Jones's complaint. (Doc. 10). on June 18, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, as well as a brief in support, statement of facts, and appendix of exhibits. (Doc. 16; Doc. 17; Doc. 18). on June 18, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file two exhibits under seal, which the Court granted on June 22, 2022. (Doc. 19; Doc. 20; Doc. 21). on June 30, 2022, Jones filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 22). on July 13, 2022, Jones filed a brief in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment and an additional brief in opposition on August 11, 2022.^[1] (Doc. 23; Doc. 26). On July 21, 2022, Defendants filed a brief in opposition to Jones's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 25).

The cross motions for summary judgment have been fully briefed and are now ripe for disposition. (Doc. 16; Doc. 17; Doc. 18; Doc. 20; Doc. 22; Doc. 23; Doc. 24; Doc. 25; Doc. 26).

B. Statement of Material Facts

Jones was incarcerated on a FB Block at SCI-Benner Township, a general population block, from March 20, 2021, until April 14, 2021. (Doc. 17, ¶ 1; Doc. 17-1). While on FB Block, Jones received medical care from medical professionals at least two to three times a day between March 20, 2021, and April 14, 2021. (Doc. 17, ¶ 2; Doc. 20, at 3-9, 11-17). C.O. Smitty worked the 6:00-2:00 p.m. shift on FB Block at SCI-Benner Township. (Doc. 17, ¶ 3; Doc. 17-4; Doc. 17-5). Sgt. Boone worked the 6:00-2:00 p.m. shift on FB Block at SCI Benner Township. (Doc. 17, ¶ 4; Doc. 17-4; Doc. 17-5).

Jones filed only one inmate grievance between March 20, 2021, and April 14, 2021- inmate grievance number 923078. (Doc. 17, ¶ 5; Doc. 17-6). On April 5, 2021, Jones filed inmate grievance number 923078, seeking to complete an inmate program. (Doc. 17, ¶ 6; Doc. 17-11).

On April 14, 2021, C.O. Smitty filed inmate misconduct number D568762 against Jones for “threatening an employee or their family with bodily harm,” “refusing to obey an order,” and “presence in an unauthorized area.” (Doc. 17, ¶ 7; Doc. 17-8, at 3). A hearing examiner held a disciplinary hearing regarding misconduct number D568762 on April 15, 2021. (Doc. 17, ¶ 8; Doc. 17-8, at 2). Jones pled guilty to two of the inmate charges, and not guilty to the charge of threatening an employee or other family with bodily harm. (Doc. 17, ¶ 9; Doc. 17-8, at 2). After the conclusion of the hearing and hearing Jones's testimony, the hearing examiner found Jones guilty of the two misconduct charges to which he pled guilty and dismissed the charge to which he pled not guilty. (Doc. 17, ¶ 10; Doc. 17-8, at 2). Jones did not appeal the hearing examiner's determination. (Doc. 17, ¶ 11; Doc. 17-9, at 2).

On March 3, 2021, Jones filed inmate grievance number 917533, seeking a refund to his account. (Doc. 17, ¶ 12; Doc. 17-10). On May 7, 2021, Jones filed inmate grievance number 927287, seeking an update on the status of an economic impact payment to his account. (Doc. 17, ¶ 13; Doc. 17-12). On June 19, 2021, Jones filed inmate grievance number 932265, raising complaints regarding the denial of a shower in June 2021. (Doc. 17, ¶ 14; Doc. 17-13). On June 19, 2021, Jones also filed inmate grievance number 932277, raising complaints regarding issues on HA Block. (Doc. 17, ¶ 15; Doc. 17-14).

II. Legal Standard

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment should be granted only if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is “material” only if it might affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute of material fact is “genuine” if the evidence “is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Courts may resolve cross-motions for summary judgment concurrently. See Lawrence v. City of Philadelphia, 527 F.3d 299, 310 (3d Cir. 2008). When doing so, the court is bound to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant with respect to each motion. See Lawrence, 527 F.3d at 310 (citation omitted). In deciding a summary judgment motion, all inferences “should be drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and where the non-moving party's evidence contradicts the movant's, then the non-movant's must be taken as true.” Pastore v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa., 24 F.3d 508, 512 (3d Cir. 1994).

A federal court should grant summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 206 F.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2000). The Court need not accept mere conclusory allegations, whether they are made in the complaint or a sworn statement. Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to make credibility determinations, weigh evidence, or draw inferences from the facts. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Rather, the court must simply “determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.

In deciding a summary judgment motion, all inferences “should be drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and where the non-moving party's evidence contradicts the movant's, then the non-movant's must be taken as true.” Pastore, 24 F.3d at 512. "The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing the basis for its motion . . . [and i]f the movant meets that burden, the onus then ‘shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts showing the existence of [a genuine issue of material fact] for trial.'” Triad Controls, Inc., 593 F.Supp.2d 741, 749 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (citing Shields v. Zuccarini, 254 F.3d 476, 481 (3d Cir.2001)). “Although the party opposing summary judgment is entitled to the ‘benefit of all factual inferences in the court's consideration of a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must point to some evidence in the record that creates a genuine issue of material fact.'”^[2] Velentzas v. U.S., No. 4: CV -07-1255, 2010 WL 3896192, *7 (M.D. Pa. August 31, 2010) (quoting Goode v. Nash, 241 Fed.Appx. 868, 869 (3d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The opposing party “cannot rest solely on assertions made in the pleadings, legal memorandum, or oral argument.” Goode, 241 Fed.Appx. at 869 (quoting Berckeley Inv. Grp., Ltd. V. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 201 (3d Cir. 2006)). If the non-moving party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to [the non-movant's] case, and on which [the non-movant] will bear the burden of proof at trial,” Rule 56 mandates the entry of summary judgment because such a failure “necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Jakimas v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 485 F.3d 770, 777 (3d Cir.2007). Further, "[t]he mere existence of some evidence in support of the nonmovant is insufficient to deny a motion for summary judgment; enough evidence must exist to enable a jury...