Musier v. MHM, Inc.

1

TYREE MUSIER, Plaintiff v. MHM, INC., et al., Defendants

No. 1:23-cv-01047

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

January 18, 2024

MEMORANDUM

Yvette Kane, District Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania

This is a prisoner civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 in which pro se Plaintiff Tyree Musier (“Musier”) alleges that Defendants have violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by placing him in solitary confinement and denying him drug treatment. Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss Musier's complaint. (Doc. No. 3.) For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss will be granted and Musier's complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

Musier filed the complaint that initiated this case on May 1, 2023 in the Huntingdon County Court of Common Pleas. (Doc. No 1-3.) According to the complaint, Musier has a well-documented history of substance abuse, both before and after his incarceration. (Id. at 3.) The complaint alleges that, in August 2017, while Musier was incarcerated at Huntingdon State Correctional Institution (“SCI-Huntingdon”), he was found with crushed Xanax in his possession and was given a misconduct citation for possession of contraband, which resulted in him spending thirty-four (34) days in SCI-Huntingdon's Restricted Housing Unit (“RHU”). (Id. at 4.) After exiting the RHU, Musier allegedly became the target of cell searches at least once a week from 2017 to 2022. (Id. at 5.) Musier sought drug treatment several times between 2017 and 2022, but the complaint alleges that prison staff repeatedly told him that he is not eligible for drug treatment because he is serving a life sentence. (Id.)

Sometime in 2022, prison staff allegedly found “orange strips with green markings on them” in Musier's possession. (Id.) An officer in SCI-Huntingdon, Lieutenant Corley (“Corley”), requested that Musier remain in the RHU pending the results of lab testing on the strips. (Id.) Musier allegedly suffered a panic attack due to the stress of remaining in the RHU on September 11, 2022, which resulted in him being transferred to an outside hospital for treatment. (Id.) During the hospital stay, hospital staff informed Musier that he had contracted clostridioides difficile (“C. diff.”), a potentially dangerous bacterial infection. (Id.) The complaint alleges that Musier contracted C. diff. as a result of eating meals from the prison's provided meal trays. (Id. at 5-6.) Musier remained hospitalized from September 11, 2022 to September 27, 2022. (Id. at 6.)

On September 12, 2022, the orange strips purportedly tested positive for the presence of Suboxone. (Id.) Corley issued Musier a misconduct citation, but because of his hospitalization he was not served with the citation until September 28, 2022. (Id.) The matter was referred to Defendant Ellenberger (“Ellenberger”), a disciplinary hearing officer, for a hearing on September 30, 2022. (Id.) Ellenberger allegedly falsified documents to indicate that Musier pleaded guilty to the misconduct charge. (Id.) Ellenberger sentenced him to 120 days of disciplinary custody. (Id.) Halfway through this sentence, Musier submitted a request to a Program Review Committee (“PRC”) in which he requested that the “PRC Defendants” give him “half-time.” (Id.) The “PRC Defendants” denied this request. (Id.) Musier subsequently requested that he be placed in drug treatment, but the PRC allegedly told him that drug treatment was not available for inmates serving life sentences and was reserved for inmates who were eligible for parole or release in the near future. (Id. at 7.)

On December 21, 2022, an officer in SCI-Huntingdon, Sergeant Chamberlain (“Chamberlain”), purportedly requested that Musier be transferred to administrative custody based on concerns that Musier was in danger from other individuals in the prison. (Id.) The “PRC Defendants” transferred Musier to administrative custody based on this request. (Id.)

Musier was transferred from SCI-Huntingdon to Fayette State Correctional Institution (“SCI-Fayette”) on January 26, 2023. (Id. at 8.) He was immediately placed in SCI-Fayette's RHU. (Id.) On February 2, 2023, Musier was informed by RHU staff that he was awaiting “DEMO unit approval.” (Id.) The complaint alleges that placement in the DEMO unit will result in Musier being placed in solitary confinement. (Id. at 9.)

The complaint asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), the Eighth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, medical malpractice, and falsification of documents. (Id. at 10.) Musier seeks damages and injunctive relief. (Id. at 11.)

On May 22, 2023, the Court of Common Pleas conducted an in forma pauperis screening review of Musier's complaint and dismissed all claims other than Musier's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim, and his medical malpractice claim against Defendants MHM, Inc. and Cousins. (Doc. No. 1-3.) On June 2, 2023, Defendants Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”), Little, Rivello, Kohler, Spyker, House, Strait, McCloskey, Eberling, and Ellenberger (“DOC Defendants”) were served with process. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) DOC Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on June 23, 2023, and the case was assigned to the undersigned. (Id.)

DOC Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on June 29, 2023, and filed a brief in support of the motion on July 14, 2023. (Doc. Nos. 3-4.) Musier has not responded to the motion and the deadline for doing so has expired under the Local Rules. See M.D. Pa. L.R. 7.6. The motion is accordingly ripe for judicial resolution.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

Federal notice and pleading rules require the complaint to provide the defendant notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must present facts that, accepted as true, demonstrate a plausible right to relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” a complaint may nevertheless be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for its “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court accepts as true all factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009); In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300, 314 (3d Cir. 2010). To prevent dismissal, all civil complaints must set out “sufficient factual matter” to show that their claims are facially plausible. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). The plausibility standard requires more than a mere possibility that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct: “where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not ‘show[n]' - ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.'” See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

Accordingly, the Third Circuit has identified the following steps that a district court must take when reviewing a 12(b)(6) motion: (1) identify the elements that a plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify any conclusory allegations contained in the complaint that are “not entitled” to the assumption of truth; and (3) determine whether any “well-pleaded factual allegations” contained in the complaint “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” See Santiago v. Warminster Township, 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

The Third Circuit has specified that in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, “a court must consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these documents.” See Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)). An undisputedly authentic document attached as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss by a defendant may be the basis to grant the motion to dismiss if the contents of the document contradict the plaintiff's allegations. See Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 998 F.2d at 1196 (noting that “a court may consider an undisputedly authentic document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the document” because “otherwise, a plaintiff with a legally deficient claim could survive a motion to dismiss simply by failing to attach a dispositive document on which it relied”).

In the context of pro se prisoner litigation, the Court must be mindful that a document filed pro se is “to be liberally construed.” See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Pro se complaints, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106).

B. Section 1983 Standard

Section 1983 is the vehicle by which...