Rosado v. Karnes

WILLIAM MALDONADO ROSADO, Plaintiff v. ROBERT J. KARNES, et al., Defendants

CASE NO. 4:19-CV-1655

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

December 1, 2020

(ARBUCKLE, M.J.)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31)

On September 25, 2019, William Maldonado Rosado ("Plaintiff") initiated this civil action by filing a Complaint in forma pauperis. (Doc. 1). In his Complaint, Plaintiff names the following Defendants: Robert J. Karnes ("Karnes"), Warden for the Lebanon County Correctional Facility; and Tina Litz ("Litz"), Deputy Warden for the Lebanon County Correctional Facility. (Doc. 1, at 2). Presently pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Karnes and Litz (collectively "Defendants"). (Doc. 31). Along with their Motion, Defendants filed a brief in support. (Doc. 32). On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition. (Doc. 35). On September 3, 2020, Defendants filed a reply. (Doc. 36).

This matter is before me, upon consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 37). After reviewing Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1), and the arguments raised in the parties' briefs, I find that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons explained below Defendants' Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice (Doc. 32) will be Granted in Part but Plaintiff will be given leave to amend.

I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed this pro se civil Complaint in federal court alleging violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants Karnes and Litz. (Doc. 1, at 1). Plaintiff alleges that he is a protective custody inmate. (Doc. 1, at 2-3). Plaintiff asserts that the prison does not provide protective custody inmates reasonable access to the law library. (Doc. 1, at 2). Specifically, Plaintiff argues that as a protective custody inmate, he is only permitted to access the law library through a kiosk machine, which is shared with other protective custody inmates. (Doc. 1, at 2-3). Plaintiff submits that there are 26 to 35 protective custody inmates and each inmate is only permitted 20 to 30 minutes to use the kiosk machine. (Doc. 1, at 3). Plaintiff contends, however, that 20 to 30 minutes is inadequate for 26 to 35 protective custody inmates, and thus does not permit reasonable access to the courts. Id.

Plaintiff further contends that as a protective custody inmate, he is not permitted to go to the law library; he cannot seek assistance from the library clerk; and he is not permitted to seek assistance from other inmates in the prison. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief regarding his ability to access the law library. (Doc. 1, at 3). Particularly, Plaintiff requests that protective custody inmatesbe afforded equal access to the law library, similar to inmates housed in general population; that Lebanon County Correctional Facility increase the amount of time that protective custody inmates are permitted to access the law library; and that Lebanon County Correctional Facility allow protective custody inmates the opportunity to seek assistance from other inmates or library clerks. (Doc. 1, at 3).

On August 6, 2020, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) currently pending before this Court and a supporting brief (Doc. 32). On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition. (Doc. 35). On September 3, 2020, Defendants filed a reply. (Doc. 36).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. It is proper for the court to dismiss a complaint in accordance with Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court "must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true, construe the complaint in the light favorable to the plaintiff, and ultimately determine whether plaintiff may be entitled to relief under any reasonable reading of the complaint." Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 229 (3d Cir. 2010). In reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court must "consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to thecomplaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the [plaintiff's] claims are based upon these documents." Id. at 230.

In deciding whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court is required to accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint as well as all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the complaint. Jordan v. Fox Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Inc., 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). These allegations and inferences are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. However, the court "need not credit a complaint's bald assertions or legal conclusions when deciding a motion to dismiss." Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). Further, it is not proper to "assume that [the plaintiff] can prove facts that [he] has not alleged . . . ." Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).

Following the rule announced in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, "a pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Rather, a complaint must recite factual allegations enough to raise the plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation. Id. To determine the sufficiency of a complaint under the pleading regime established by the Supreme Court, the court must engage in a three-step analysis:

First, the court must take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim. Second, the court should identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Finally, where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.

Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675, 679). "In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief" and instead must 'show' such an entitlement with its facts." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009).

As the court of appeals has observed:

The Supreme Court in Twombly set forth the "plausibility" standard for overcoming a motion to dismiss and refined this approach in Iqbal. The plausibility standard requires the complaint to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. A complaint satisfies the plausibility standard when the factual pleadings "allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). This standard requires showing "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. A complaint which pleads facts "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability, [ ] "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement of relief.'" Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955).

Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 220-21 (3d Cir. 2011).

In undertaking this task, the court generally relies only on the complaint, attached exhibits, and matters of public record. Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007). The court may also consider "undisputedly authenticdocument[s] that a defendant attached as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the [attached] documents." Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993). Moreover, "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); see also, U.S. Express Lines, Ltd. v. Higgins, 281 F.3d 382, 388 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that "[a]lthough 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 in one for summary judgment."). However, the court may not rely on other parts of the record in determining a motion to dismiss. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien &Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff appears to allege one overarching § 1983 claim against Defendants Karnes and Litz in his Complaint. Significantly, Plaintiff alleges that Lebanon County Correctional Facility does not provide protective custody inmates reasonable access to the law library, thus reasonable access to the courts. (Doc. 1, at 2). Plaintiff further contends that as a protective custody inmate, he is not permitted to go to the law library; he cannot seek assistance from the library clerk; and he is not permittedto seek assistance from other inmates in the prison. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief regarding his ability to access the law library. (Doc. 1, at 3).

A. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO PLEAD A PLAUSIBLE ACCESS TO COURTS CLAIM UNDER § 1983

Defendants Karnes and Litz argue that Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against them should be dismissed with prejudice based on two reasons: (1) that Plaintiff failed to allege facts establishing their personal involvement; and (2) that Plaintiff failed to allege facts suggesting that he lost the opportunity to assert a colorable legal claim or defense as the result of his alleged insufficient access to the prison law library. (Doc. 32, at 2-3).

1. Plai...