Molina v. Kauffman

1

MIGUEL MOLINA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. K. KAUFFMAN, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:21-CV-00038

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

July 25, 2022

BRANN J.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court are partial motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Kevin Kauffman, Superintendent of SCI-Huntingdon; Jill Spyker, Deputy Superintendent for Decentralized Services at SCI-Huntingdon; Scott Walters, former Deputy Superintendent for Centralized Services at SCI-Huntingdon; G. Ralston, Unit Manager of certain housing units (B and C Blocks) at SCI-Huntingdon; John E. Wetzel, Secretary of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Tabb Bickell, Executive Deputy Secretary for Institutional Operations for the Department of Corrections (“DOC”); and Erin Brown, Director of the Office of Population Management (“OPM”) of the DOC (collectively “Defendants”). (Doc. 111; Doc. 115; Doc. 118; Doc. 120). Additionally, before the Court are motions for preliminary injunction filed by pro se prisoner-Plaintiffs Vann L. Bailey, Angel Irizarry, Alexis Maldanado, and Miguel Molina. (Doc. 117; Doc. 122; Doc. 125; Doc. 153). On January 8, 2021, pro se-prisoner Plaintiffs Vann L. Bailey, Jason Cisne.^[1]Angel Irizarry Alexis Maldanado, and Miguel Molina (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this civil rights action by filing a complaint seeking the implementation of various measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and to address the movement and housing of inmates, the infrastructure of the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon (“SCI-Huntingdon”), and the sanitary conditions of the facility. (Doc. 101; Doc. 104; Doc. 106; Doc. 108).

For the reasons stated herein, it is recommended that Defendants' partial motions to dismiss be GRANTED (Doc. 111; Doc. 115; Doc. 118; Doc. 120), and that Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction be DENIED. (Doc. 117; Doc. 122; Doc. 125; Doc. 153).

I. Background and Procedural History

On January 8, 2021, Plaintiffs initiated this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants for constitutional violations caused by the deterioration of the SCI-Huntingdon facility and by employee misconduct. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs, through counsel, filed an amended complaint on March 21, 2021, and a motion to certify the class and appoint class counsel on March 29, 2021. (Doc. 35; Doc. 43; Doc. 44). On September 28, 2021, the District Court adopted the undersigned's report and recommendation to deny Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. (Doc. 67; Doc. 84). On October 1, 2021, the undersigned granted counsel for Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to withdraw as counsel. (Doc. 86; Doc. 88).

On October 19, 2021, the undersigned granted Plaintiffs leave to file individual amended complaints. (Doc. 91; Doc. 100). Plaintiffs filed third amended complaints on the following dates: Irizarry filed a complaint on November 12, 2021 (Doc. 101); Maldanado filed a complaint on November 16, 2021 (Doc. 104); Bailey filed a complaint on November 16, 2021 (Doc. 106); and Molina filed a complaint on November 22, 2021 (Doc. 108). Defendants filed the motion to dismiss Irizarry's complaint on November 23, 2021 (Doc. 111); the motion to dismiss Maldanado's complaint on November 29, 2021 (Doc. 115); the motion to dismiss Bailey's complaint on November 30, 2021 (Doc. 118); and the motion to dismiss Molina's complaint on December 2, 2021 (Doc. 120). On November 29, 2021, Maldanado filed a motion for preliminary injunction.^[2] (Doc. 117). On December 3, 2021, Molina filed a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. 122). On December 6, 2021, Irizarry filed a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. 125).

On January 18, 2022, Molina filed the “motion for justice and fairness,” requesting the Court to direct Defendants to serve legal documents directly to SCI-Huntingdon. (Doc. 147). On January 28, 2022, Bailey filed a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. 153). Irizarry and Maldanado filed motions to compel proper service, requesting that the Court direct Defendants serve legal documents directly to SCI-Huntingdon, on February 2, 2022, and February 8, 2022, respectively. (Doc. 159; Doc. 165). On April 14, 2022, the Court denied Molina, Irizarry, and Maldanado's individual motions that sought to compel Defendants to serve all correspondence intended for Plaintiffs directly to SCI-Huntingdon. (Doc. 147; Doc. 159; Doc. 165; Doc. 188; Doc. 189). On May 12, 2022, Maldanado filed a motion for leave of Court to file a supplemental complaint.^[3] (Doc. 190). On June 8, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery pending the resolution of the motions to dismiss.^[4] (Doc. 196).

In the complaints, Plaintiffs aver that the “structures, mechanical systems, and other features of the physical plant at SCI Huntingdon have fallen to disrepair.” (Doc. 101, ¶ 3; Doc. 104, ¶ 3; Doc. 106, ¶ 4; Doc. 108, ¶ 4). Plaintiffs state that, through regular inspections by facility staff and guards, the DOC knows of the prison facility's disrepair, including lack of ventilation, presence of mold and asbestos, lead-based water pipes, and inadequate mechanisms for locking cell doors to prevent rapid evacuation in case of a fire or other emergency. (Doc. 101, ¶ 6; Doc. 104, ¶ 6; Doc. 106, ¶ 5; Doc. 108, ¶ 5). Plaintiffs allege that inmates at SCI-Huntingdon are being exposed at a high rate to the COVID-19 virus due to the facility's lack of proper ventilation and overcrowding. (Doc. 101, ¶¶ 147-152; Doc. 104, ¶¶ 147-152). Regarding the facility's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiffs contend that inadequate quarantine protocols, the unavailability of cleaning supplies and masks, cohort size exceeding CDC recommendations, and deficiencies in social distancing protocols have contributed to the spread of the virus. (Doc. 101, ¶¶ 46-64; Doc. 104, ¶¶ 46-64). For relief, Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. (Doc. 101, at 29; Doc. 104, at 36-37; Doc. 106, at 21-22; Doc. 108, at 21-23).

The motions been fully briefed and are ripe for disposition. (Doc. 111; Doc. 112; Doc. 115; Doc. 116; Doc. 118; Doc. 119; Doc. 120; Doc. 121; Doc. 122; Doc. 123; Doc. 125; Doc. 127; Doc. 130; Doc. 133; Doc. 135; Doc. 138; Doc. 139; Doc. 140; Doc. 149; Doc. 153; Doc. 154; Doc. 158; Doc. 163; Doc. 184; Doc. 186).

A. Summary of DOC's Response to COVID-19

The DOC has provided publicly available information regarding its efforts to mitigate the risk of the transmission of COVID-19.^[5]See https://www.cor.pa.gov/Pages/COVID-19.aspx (last accessed May 27, 2022).

In March 2020, the DOC implemented a statewide quarantine of its population which included a halt to all in-person visitation. At first, SCI-Retreat, and now SCI-smithfield, served as the designated reception facility for all new male court commitments and parole violators, allowing for their quarantining and medical screening prior to their transfer to a facility. The DOC also implemented several measures to reduce its population by working with the parole board. Additionally, all individuals entering a facility are screened for flu-like symptoms. No one with a fever over 100 degrees is permitted to enter a facility. Inmates and staff are required to wear masks and are provided with cleaning materials to clean their cells. Correctional Industries continues to produce masks and anti-bacterial soap which is available to inmates. COVID-19 vaccines are available to all inmates and staff. As of August 4, 2021, for the protection of the unvaccinated portion of the SCI-Huntingdon's inmate population, they were moved to a single housing unit. See https://www.cor.pa.gov/Documents/SCI%20COVID%20Communications/HUN-Fireside-Chat-8-4-21.pdf (last visited May 27, 2022). Leadership at each facility, including SCI-Huntingdon, continue to frequently update inmates “on the latest in the ever-changing COVID-19 landscape.” See https://www.cor.pa.gov/Pages/COVID-19-SCI-Messages.aspx (last visited May 27, 2022).

As of May 27, 2022, SCI-Huntingdon houses 1,489 inmates. There are presently no active reported inmate cases of COVID-19 at the facility. Cumulatively, the institution has had 425 inmates test positive for COVID-19. A total of 9 SCI-Huntingdon inmates have died from COVID-19. SCI-Huntingdon has administered over 3,230 COVID-19 tests to inmates. See DOC COVID Dashboard, https://www.cor.pa.gov/Pages/COVID-19.aspx (last visited May 27, 2022).

II. Standards of Review

A. Motion to Dismiss Standard

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defendant to move to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To assess the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must first take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim, then identify mere conclusions which are not entitled to the assumption of truth, and finally determine whether the complaint's factual allegations, taken as true, could plausibly satisfy the elements of the legal claim. Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 221 (3d Cir. 2011). in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider the facts alleged on the face of the complaint, as well as “documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.s. 308, 322 (2007).

After recognizing the required elements which make up the legal claim, a court should “begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v Iqbal, 556 U.s. 662, 679 (2009). The plaintiff...