Miller v. Trometter

SEAN MILLER, Plaintiff

v.K. TROMETTER, et al., Defendants

CIVIL NO. 4:11-cv-811

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date: November 27, 2012

(Judge Nealon)

MEMORANDUM

On April 27, 2011, Plaintiff, Sean Miller, who was previously confined at the State Correctional Institution Frackville, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Frackville"), filed the above captioned civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Named as Defendants are the following employees at SCI-Frackville: Correctional Officer Trometter, Hearing Examiner Luquis, Superintendent Collins, and Grievance Coordinator Damiter. (Id.). The complaint also names Program Review Committee ("PRC") members Deputy Superintendent of Centralized Services Kovalchik, Deputy Superintendent of Facility Management Derfler, and Centralized Correctional Program Manager Kephart ("PRC Defendants"). (Id.). Plaintiff alleges racial discrimination, defamation, failure to protect, retaliation, denial of basic human needs, and due process violations. (Id.). On June 16, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which became moot when Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 18, 2011. (Docs. 6, 11, 15). On September 1, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss less than all the claims in the amended complaint. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition on September 22, 2011. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

Factual Allegations

The amended complaint, (Doc. 11), makes the following factual allegations:

On March 22, 2010, Defendant Trometter denied the request of Plaintiff, an African American, and of a majority group of other African American inmates to turn the day room television to Black Entertainment Television ("B.E.T."). Defendant Trometter responded, "there will be no black shows, including B.E.T. shown on the TV while I'm working." Plaintiff alleges that this discriminatory conduct violates prison policy that inmates are entitled to two (2) hours of recreational activities daily and is contrary to the prison's practice of showing television programs requested by a majority of the inmates. Plaintiff filed a grievance against Defendant Trometter regarding this incident.

On April 12, 2010, Plaintiff's cellmate informed him that Defendant Trometter said Plaintiff was a "rat" because Plaintiff snitched on Defendant Trometter by filing a grievance. Defendant Trometter told the cellmate that it would only be a matter of time before she got even with Plaintiff.

On April 26, 2010, another inmate advised Plaintiff that Defendant Trometter informed him that Plaintiff was a "snitch" by filing the grievance and that Defendant Trometter's superiors are now watching her closely. Also on April 26, 2010, Plaintiff's cellmate advised Plaintiff that he witnessed Defendant Trometter tell many other inmates that Plaintiff was a snitch and that someone needed to get him off the block. After that date, several inmates disassociated themselves with Plaintiff based on rumors he was a snitch.

On April 28, 2010, Plaintiff spoke with Defendants Collins and Kovalchik about the rumors spread by Defendant Trometter and requested a transfer to another housing block. Defendant Kovalchik advised Plaintiff to send a written request and he would look into the situation. The next day, Plaintiff wrote Defendant Kovalchik and sent a copy to DefendantCollins. Plaintiff received no response and no action was taken.

On May 8, 2010, Plaintiff was attacked by two (2) inmates on his block, one armed with a steel shank. Plaintiff suffered scratches, bruises, headaches, and required stitches. After release from the medical department, Plaintiff was placed in the Restrictive Housing Unit ("RHU"). On May 9, 2010, Defendant Trometter told an inmate that she was glad they got the snitch.

On July 28, 2010, Plaintiff appeared at a Program Review Committee hearing. He expressed his concerns to the PRC Defendants about his attack, Defendants' failure to protect, and the lack of discipline to Defendant Trometter for spreading rumors that he was a snitch. Plaintiff requested a transfer; but, the PRC Defendants returned him to the same housing block.

On August 6, 2010, Defendant Trometter denied Plaintiff's request for a shower. On August 8, 2010, Defendant Trometter refused to give Plaintiff a pen to sign for his mail, although she had provided a pen to other inmates.

On August 25, 2010, Defendant Trometter told Plaintiff's cellmate, "I'm tired of being around him [Plaintiff] after he filed grievances on me and if you don't get him out of there [the cell], I will." On August 27, 2010, Defendant Trometter issued a false misconduct to Plaintiff for sexual harassment, alleging that Plaintiff created and left a lewd drawing on the office desk. The next day, Plaintiff wrote to Defendant Damiter about the falsified misconduct charge and of Defendant Trometter's ongoing acts of retaliation. Defendant Damiter advised Plaintiff to file an appeal, which he did. When Defendant Damiter informed Plaintiff that he did not receive the written complaint, Plaintiff refiled the grievance on September 2, 2010.

On August 30, 2010, Plaintiff's misconduct hearing was held by Defendant Luquis. Plaintiff submitted his version of the events and witnesses Wickersham and Captain Dusel.Plaintiff also stated that he intended to present documentary evidence, in the nature of handwriting exemplars and an affidavit from his cellmate, establishing that he did not create the lewd drawing. Defendant Luquis lectured Plaintiff about filing grievances against staff because it remains on their record and refused to view Plaintiff's evidence, stating "I don't have time for that." Defendant Luquis found Plaintiff guilty of the false charge and sanctioned him to a total of ninety (90) days placement in the RHU. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Luquis is bias and routinely denies relevant witnesses and evidence.

Between September 13 and 16, 2010, and on October 5 and 6, 2010, staff members Wickersham and Shaeffer denied Plaintiff breakfast and lunch. Throughout September and October, 2010, they also denied Plaintiff showers on twenty-eight (28) occasions and denied yard exercise thirty-four (34) times. Wickersham and Shaeffer falsified the meal, yard, and shower list to cover-up their misconduct. During this time, Plaintiff was subjected to degrading, irregular, and excessive body cavity strip searches involving twenty-two (22)¹ unnecessary steps contrary to prison policy. The extra steps were unsanitary because Plaintiff was forced to place his fingers in his mouth, for a visual inspection thereof, after having been in the prison yard for exercise and having touched, inter alia, his penis and buttocks as part of the search. Plaintiff alleges that he developed soar throats and became ill as a result.

On September 13 and 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed grievances regarding his mistreatment. On September 27, 2010, he spoke with Defendant Damiter regarding his complaints of retaliation by Defendant Trometter, of deprivation of food, showers, and laundry, and of excessive body cavitysearches. Defendant Damiter told Plaintiff that he filed too many grievances, was going home soon, and refused to address his complaints. Plaintiff informed Defendant Damiter that he still had thirty (30) days left. Defendant Damiter allegedly demonstrated a pattern of retaliation and refused to consider complaints of inmates who file multiple grievances and are close to going home.

On September 17, 2010, the PRC Defendants refused to correct the constitutional violations when addressing Plaintiff's misconduct appeal. On September 28, 2010, Defendant Collins also failed to correct the violations when he considered Plaintiff's misconduct appeal.

Plaintiff alleges racial discrimination, defamation, failure to protect, and retaliation against Defendant Trometter. He claims Defendants Collins and Kovalchik breached their duty to protect Plaintiff after being informed that Plaintiff had been labeled a snitch and was subsequently assaulted based on such rumors. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Luquis and Damiter retaliated against him for filing grievances. The amended complaint pleads an Eighth Amendment claim for denial of basic human needs against Wickersham and Shaeffer for denying him food, showers, and exercise. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied due process by Defendant Luquis at his misconduct hearing and that Defendants Collins, Kovalcik, Derfler, and Kephart failed to correct the violations. The amended complaint alleges that the body cavity strip searches were conducted in an unconstitutional manner. Finally, Plaintiff claims that all the conditions of confinement constituted a significant hardship and that Defendant acted with reckless indifference.

Standard of Review

In rendering a decision on a motion to dismiss, a court should not inquire "whether aplaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 66 (3d Cir. 1996). The court must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences from them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Innis v. Wilson, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12424, *4-5 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)). However, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) ("Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."). "First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). The court must then determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief, which is "a...