Ortiz v. Alexander, Civil No. 3:19-cv-1894

HARRY N. ORTIZ, Plaintiff v. UNIT MANAGER ALEXANDER, et al., Defendants

Civil No. 3:19-cv-1894

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

March 22, 2021

(Judge Mariani)

MEMORANDUM

I. BACKGROUND

On October 31, 2019, Harry N. Ortiz ("Plaintiff"), an inmate currently confined in the Rockview State Correctional Institution, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Rockview"), filed the above-captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The named Defendants are the SCI-Rockview Maintenance Department, and the following SCI-Rockview employees: Unit Manager Alexander, Sergeant Bloom, and Correctional Officers Bainey and Mosser. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff complains of Defendants' alleged deliberate indifference to his safety, and resulting medical treatment, when he was burned on an exposed steam heat pipe. (Id.) For relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id.)

On March 17, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 13) and on March 18, 2020, filed a brief in support of their motion. (Doc. 14). By Order dated June 8, 2020, this Court granted Plaintiff until June 22, 2020, to file a brief in opposition to Defendants' pending motion. (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff was granted two additional enlargements of time (Docs. 19, 21) within which to file a brief in opposition to Defendants' pending motion to dismiss. On August 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Doc. 22). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion will be granted, with Plaintiff being provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint with respect to his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to health and safety claim.

II. MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants move for the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 19 at 9.) 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. Cty. 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 fromthem, 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: "[W]here 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 Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

"To decide a motion to dismiss, courts generally consider only the allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint and matters of public record." Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir.1993) (citations omitted); see also Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3dCir.2007). The court may consider "undisputedly authentic document[s] that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the [attached] document[s]." Pension Benefit, 998 F.2d at 1196. Additionally, "documents whose contents are alleged in the complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered." Pryor v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir.2002) (citation omitted); see also U.S. Express Lines, Ltd. v. Higgins, 281 F.3d 383, 388 (3d Cir.2002) ("Although a district court may not consider matters extraneous to the pleadings, a document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint may be considered without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment." (internal quotation omitted)). However, the court may not rely on other parts of the record in making its decision. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir.1994).

When presented with a pro se complaint, the court should construe the complaint liberally and draw fair inferences from what is not alleged as well as from what is alleged. Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir.2003); Youse v. Carlucci, 867 F.Supp. 317, 318 (E.D.Pa.1994). Such a complaint "must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).

Finally, in the Third Circuit, a court must grant leave to amend before dismissing a civil rights complaint that is merely deficient. See, e.g., Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. PoteConcrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 252 (3d Cir.2007); Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116 (3d Cir.2000). "Dismissal without leave to amend is justified only on the grounds of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility." Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 236 (3d Cir.2004).

III. ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT¹

On February 2, 2018, Plaintiff alleges that he "suffered severe burns on his left arm and back, that was caused by the actions of a 'shakedown team' inclusive of Mr. Mosser." (Doc. 1). He claims that "the actions of Mr. Mosser were such that he removed the heat shield from a steam pipe utilized for heating contained within the cell" and that "such heat pipe removal was documented within a work order submitted on November 4, 2017 by staff." (Id.) Plaintiff concludes that "this action, while documented within a work order was deemed closed on January 2, 2018, yet this issue was never corrected." (Id.).

On February 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed Grievance #720101 complaining of the following:

During an investigated shakedown, over 3 months ago, C/O spit tobacco all over my toilet, broke my partials in 4 pieces, charge me for items that were never there, and finally C/O Mosser continue to pull and kick the safety guard from the heating pipes until he finally removed it from the original setting and carried it away. For over 3 months I've been writing security for a letter or confirmation for the dentist in which he asked in order to replace my partials. I also let Block SRG. Lt. Unit Manager send request to security to locate the safety heating guard. I also have spoken to Maintenance Supervisor Mr. Warrant to check if they have a work order to fix this issue in Cell 106. Nothing has been done and have no answers. Spoke to Lt. Vance, he claimed maintenance have a work order but nothing. Today I was sent to medical 2-2-2018, approximately 7:15 pm for serious burns on my left arm and back. Pic were taken in medical. Now I'm being treated for a serious burn on both my arm and my back, left side.

I'm looking to be recompense for negligence according to the Department of Corrections, unprofessionalism according to staff, lack of ethics according to staff, prejudicism (sic) according to staff creating and neglecting by continuing to live under a very serious safety hazardous environment and continuing to disregard my plead and request.

I'm asking for the replacement of my partials, pain and suffering and being scared for life under negligence. An amount of $100,000, one hundred thousand dollars. According to the PA Commonwealth district court of small claims.

P/S. BE AWARE. This grievance is to explain every detail that obviously let to my burns to understand the process I've taken that let up to this on 02-02-2018.

(Doc. 14-1 at 1-2, Official Inmate Grievance No. 720101).

Plaintiff states that he "understands that 'negligence' is not a valid federal legal challenge, and therefore, raises within the instant action a claim of 'deliberate indifference'toward his medical need, and non-medical 'deliberate indifference' for the actions of the Maintenance Department." (Doc. 1 at 5).

On April 3, 2018, Plaintiff claims to have received Ms. Alexander's March 5, 2018 response to Grievance #720101, (Doc. 1 at 5), in which Ms. Alexander denied Plaintiff's grievance as follows:

In your grievance, you state that over three months ago, your cell was searched by the search team, and they spit tobacco all over your toilet, broke your partials and charged you for items that were never there. You also state that the search team pulled the safety guard from the heating pipes. You state that on 2/2/2018 you were sent to medical for burns sustained to your left arm and back. You assert that the above issues constitute neglect by the Department of Corrections.

Issues related to the tobacco spit on the toilet, your partials,

...