Case Law Massaquoi v. McConaughey

Massaquoi v. McConaughey

Document Cited Authorities (64) Cited in Related

(MANNION, D.J.)

(ARBUCKLE, M.J.)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. INTRODUCTION

There is no dispute that prison life is rigid and often harsh. However, a federal court is not the proper forum for challenging or changing every aspect of the harsh realities of confinement unless the conditions cannot be tolerated under the Constitution.1 In this case, a state prisoner recites a series of unpleasant encounters with prison staff, none of which involved personal injury, destruction of property, or significant interference with his rights. Plaintiff's righteous indignation is outlined in an amended complaint, consisting of thirty-three (33) typed pages and 138 paragraphs, naming fifty-five (55) corrections staff who have affronted his dignity.

Presently before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 54) filed by all Defendants. For the reasons outlined in this Report, it is Recommended that the Defendant's Motion be granted without leave to amend and the case be closed.Table of Contents

I. Introduction ................................................................................................ 1

II. Background and Procedural History .......................................................... 5

III. Legal Standards .......................................................................................... 8

A. Motion to Dismiss Standard ....................................................................... 8
B. Poulis Standard ......................................................................................... 11

IV. Analysis .................................................................................................... 13

A. Merits of Plaintiff's Claims ..................................................... 13
1. Defendant Department of Corrections ..................................... 14
2. Defendant J McConaughey ................................................. 14
3. Defendant Kline .............................................................. 15
4. Defendant Shope ............................................................. 16
5. Defendant Boyd ............................................................... 18
6. Defendant Sheets ............................................................. 19
7. Defendant Deljanovan ....................................................... 20
8. Defendant Seese .............................................................. 20
9. Defendant Kauffman ......................................................... 21
10. Defendant Henry ............................................................ 22
11. Defendant Lear and Defendant Thomas .................................. 2312. Defendant Steightiff ......................................................... 24
13. Defendant Keel ............................................................... 26
14. Defendant Grove ............................................................. 27
15. Defendant Householder ...................................................... 28
16. Defendant Williams, Defendant Huber, Defendant Moyer, and Defendant Parson ............................................................ 29
17. Defendant Kylor, Defendant Sullivan, Defendant Killinger, and Defendant Yoder ............................................................. 30
18. Defendant Ruiz ............................................................... 31
19. Defendant Bickert ............................................................ 31
20. Defendant Horton ............................................................ 32
21. Defendant Douglas ........................................................... 34
22. Defendant Wrentz ........................................................... 35
23. Defendant Ramey ............................................................ 36
24. Defendant Killinger ......................................................... 37
25. Defendant Long .............................................................. 38
26. Defendant Byers ............................................................. 38
27. Defendant Martz ............................................................. 39
28. Defendant Matula ............................................................ 40
29. Defendant Dickson .......................................................... 4230. Defendant Ranch ............................................................ 42
31. Defendant Field .............................................................. 44
32. Defendant Mayers ........................................................... 44
33. Defendant Magee ............................................................ 45
34. Defendant Taylor ............................................................ 45
35. Defendant Runk .............................................................. 47
36. Defendant Parks ............................................................. 48
37. Defendant Morningstar ..................................................... 48
38. Defendant Ellenberger ...................................................... 49
39. Plaintiff's Retaliation Claims Against Defendant Murphy, Defendant Ellengerger, Defendant Byers, and Defendant Martz .................... 50
40. Named Defendants Without Claims Alleged Against Them: Crum, Nickum, Fortson, Ersek, Farabaugh, Gladfelter, Park, and Rentz ...... 53
41. Factual Allegations Without Identified Defendants ..................... 53
B. Poulis Analysis ................................................................... 54

V. Leave to Amend .................................................................. 57

VI. Recommendation ................................................................. 58

VII. Notice of Local Rule 72.3 ...................................................... 59

II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Original Complaint (Doc. 1) - a seven (7) page handwritten document made up of sixteen (16) paragraphs. At the outset, I note that on August 8, 2017, I screened Plaintiff's Original Complaint, explaining the deficiencies of Plaintiff's claims and granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 27) on April 27, 2018. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was a typed complaint consisting of thirty-three (33) pages and one hundred and thirty-eight (138) paragraphs.

According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff was a state prisoner at SCI Smithfield. (Doc. 27, ¶ 62). Plaintiff filed grievances that led to him taking legal action in a civil suit separate from this case.2 Id. at ¶ 63. Plaintiff alleges numerous incidents involving prison staff. Id. at ¶¶ 63-94. Rather than provide a lengthy recitation of Plaintiff's factual allegations here, I will address the facts of each incident in my analysis of the merits of Plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiff initiated this suit by filing a Complaint (Doc. 1) on May 30, 2017. On August 8, 2017, I screened Plaintiff's Complaint and permitted him to amend his Complaint. (Doc. 13). On April 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint (Doc. 27).

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names fifty-five (55) defendants:

1. J. McConaughey (Correctional Sergeant)
2. Kline (Correctional Sergeant)
3. B. Shope (Correctional Sergeant)
4. J. Boyd (Correctional Sergeant)
5. Sheets (Correctional Sergeant)
6. T. Deljanovan (Correctional Sergeant)
7. S. A. Seese (Correctional Sergeant)
8. W. Henry (Correctional Sergeant)
9. Sullivan (Correctional Sergeant)
10. Lear (Correctional Lieutenant)
11. Streightiff (Correctional Lieutenant)
12. Kauffman (Correctional Lieutenant)
13. Crum (Correctional Lieutenant)
14. D. Keel (Correctional Lieutenant)
15. A. P. Grove (Correctional Captain)
16. J.M. Householder (Correctional Officer)
17. N.E. Nickum (Correctional Officer)
18. B.O. Williams (Correctional Officer)
19. J. Fortson (Correctional Officer)
20. D. Kylor (Correctional Officer)
21. M. Huber (Correctional Officer)
22. D. Ruiz (Correctional Officer)
23. A. Bickert (Correctional Officer)
24. W.W. Moyer (Correctional Officer)
25. C.G. Parson (Correctional Officer)
26. H.E. Ersek (Correctional Officer)
27. Sullivan (Correctional Officer)
28. D.V. Murphy (Correctional Officer)
29. F.C. Farabaugh (Correctional Officer)
30. D.A. Douglas (Correctional Officer)
31. Wrentz (Correctional Officer)
32. R. Ramey (Correctional Officer)
33. W. Killinger (Correctional Officer)
34. D.L. Horton (Correctional Officer)
35. C.J. Yoder (Correctional Officer)
36. Gladfelter (Correctional Officer)
37. S. Long (Correctional Officer)
38. A. Byers (Correctional Officer)
39. J. Martz (Correctional Officer)
40. Matula (Correctional Officer)
41. Dickson (Correctional Officer)
42. Ranch (Correctional Officer)
43. J. Field (Correctional Officer)
44. Mayers (Correctional Officer)
45. Magee (Correctional Officer)
46. J. Taylor (Correctional Officer)
47. N. Wyles (Correctional Librarian)
48. J. Runk (Correctional Counselor)
49. A. Parks (Correctional Counselor)
50. N. Thomas (Correctional Unit Manager)
51. D. Morningstar (Correctional Unit Manager)
52. S. Ellenberger (Correctional Hearing Examiner)
53. Pennsylvania (Department and Employer of the above Defendants)
54. Brandon Rentz
55. Jay Park

Id. at ¶ 6-60.

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances and a civil suit against the prison and prison staff. Id. at ¶ 133. Plaintiff alleges violations of his First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id. at ¶ 135.

As relief, Plaintiff seeks $100,000 in compensatory damages "collectively and separately in his or her individual and official capacity." Id. at ¶ 137. Plaintiff also seeks a jury trial, payment of his costs by Defendants, and any relief this Court deems proper or appropriate. Id. at ¶ 138.

On April 19, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (...

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex