Simmons v. Gilmore

AUGUSTUS SIMMONS, Plaintiff v. ROBERT GILMORE, M. ZAKEN, LEGGET, SMITH, SHRADER, LT. KENNEDY, S. LONGSTRETC,YOUNKIN, CHIOVITTI, D. BENNER, HIMES, DORINA VARNER, J. DUPONT, T. SHAWLEY, CORE, BROOKS,CARTER, GILLESPIE, HENNESSEY, ALBONDE, IMHOLF, Defendants

Case No. 2:17-cv-00996

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

March 31, 2021

RICHARD A. LANZILLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ECF NO.112

I. Introduction

Plaintiff August Simmons (Simmons)¹, an inmate currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Greene (SCI-Greene), commenced this action against several staff members at that facility, alleging violation of his constitutional and statutory rights. The Court previously dismissed several of his claims. See ECF No. 45. The remaining Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims. ECF No. 112. For the reasons that follow, the Defendants' motion will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.²

II. Factual Background

The following factual background is taken from the Defendants' Concise Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 114) and Simmons Response to the Defendants' Concise Statement. ECF No. 124. Any disputes are noted.

Prison personnel denied Simmons a haircut on December 31, 2016. See ECF No. 115-1, p. 2. This denial, he claims, violated his religion. ECF No. 114, ¶ 1. The Defendants maintain he was denied a haircut on that date because he had not submitted a request for one, as required by institutional policy. Id., ¶ 3. Simmons contends he submitted the request slip, but that it was rejected because it "wasn't nice enough." ECF No. 123, ¶ 2. He received a haircut on January 14, 2017. See ECF No. 115-2, p. 18.

A few weeks later, on January 15, 2017, Simmons received a misconduct for using abusive or obscene language, refusing to obey an order, and threatening a Department of Corrections employee after Simmons refused to return some cleaning equipment. ECF No. 114, ¶ 4. The misconduct form is part of the record. ECF No. 115-1, p. 6. It relates that Simmons, upon being ordered to return the cleaning equipment, said "fuck you, this ain't no Holiday Inn. That's why cops get shot in the face." Id. Simmons disputes this and, instead, states that he only responded, "my bad," when told to turn over the cleaning supplies. ECF No. 123, ¶ 4. He claims the misconduct charge was fabricated in its entirety in retaliation for his filing of the grievance about the denial of his haircut. Id. Simmons maintains that he "was cleaning his cell when he was verbally assaulted by Sgt. Younkin only minutes after c/o Brooks had passed out cleaning material." ECF No. 124, ¶ 4. Simmons was found guilty of this misconduct. ECF No. 114, ¶ 5; ECF No. 124, ¶ 5.

That same day, January 15, 2017, Simmons was placed in a psychiatric observation cell (POC) after threatening self-harm. ECF No. 114, ¶ 7. Simmons explains that he "had just lost a close family member and couldn't communicate with this family because of this disciplinary statusso plaintiff [felt] like he wanted to die!" ECF No. 124, ¶ 7. Simmons filed a grievance concerning the conditions of the POC, claiming that the cell "smelled of urine and feces" and that he was not provided a bed or mattress. Id., ¶ 15; see also ECF No. 115-1, p. 26 (Grievance No. 661147). The Defendants deny Simmons' allegations regarding the condition of POC, point out that he was housed there because of his suicidal ideations, and that he was given "all authorized items" during his three-day confinement. ECF No. 114, ¶ 16. Simmons disputes this, claiming he was left naked and cold in the cell. ECF No. 124, ¶ 16.

On March 18, 2017, Simmons again attempted to get a haircut, but his request was denied. ECF No. 114, ¶ 16; ECF No. 124, ¶ 16. Simmons claimed the denial of this service led to a "dry scalp" condition, and therefore violated his religious dictates of health and personal hygiene. ECF No. 124, ¶ 16. The next day, according to Simmons, Defendant Core "swore about immigrants" and "told the Plaintiff to write [his comments] down." ECF No. 114, ¶ 21; ECF No. 124; ¶ 21. Defendants contend that Simmons received a haircut on April 2, 2017, but Simmons does not recall receiving a haircut on that date. Id., ¶ 27; id., ¶ 27.

The record reflects the following regarding Simmons' religious preferences and practices. In 2016, Simmons listed his religious preference as "Native American." Id., ¶ 29; id., ¶ 29. On December 23, 2016, Simmons changed his religious preference to "Divine Art of Scale (7%)." ECF No. 114, ¶ 30; see also ECF No. 115-1, p. 49. Simmons explained this preference:

On August 7, 2016 was his official converstion (sic) date, but plaintiff did give notice to the D.O.C. till (sic) December 23^rd 2016 which was meet (sic) with much resistance. At this time the fellowship of spiritual science was in its infinit (sic) stages and was called the Divine Art of the Scale, which still represents the 7% who see the truth. Now in the more comprehensive 2^nd edition of the Doctrine and Ethics of a Seeker which is still being written reflects that the Divine Art of the Scale is the teaching within spiritual science known as Advance Spiritual Science.

ECF No. 124, ¶ 30.

On October 4, 2018, Simmons changed his religious identification to "Fellowship of Spiritual Science." ECF No. 114, ¶ 31; ECF No. 124, ¶ 31. The Defendants state that Simmons is the founder of this religion and Simmons identifies himself as such: "plaintiff is the founder and First herald (Phoenix herald) of 7 Phoenix heralds that will later be elected to govern the clergy of the fellowship of Spiritualism." ECF No. 124, ¶ 31.³ On April 12, 2018, Simmons requested official recognition of his religion by the DOC. ECF No. 114, ¶ 34; ECF No. 124, ¶ 34; see also EFC No. 115-1, p. 57 ("Religious Accommodation Request Form"). In addition to official recognition of his religion, Simmons asked for accommodations such as a special diet, but he made no specific request for religiously sanctioned haircuts. Id., ¶ 32. Simmons acknowledges that he did not request an accommodation for haircuts because "haircuts were established in policy as accessible. Haircuts only became an issue when plaintiff tried to access haircuts and was systematically denied haircuts in retaliation for grievances filed." ECF No. 124, ¶ 32.

As the founder of his religion, Simmons has authored a monograph entitled Doctrine and Ethics of a Seeker. See ECF No. 115-2, pp. 2-216. This work includes what Simmons calls a "historical summary" in which he admits that, prior to his conversion, he "ran wild in prison" and was a "gang member." ECF No. 124, ¶ 37. The Defendants point out, and Simmons does not dispute, that in the past he was incarcerated in the institution's Security Threat Group Management Unit (STGMU) for gang-related activities. ECF No. 114, ¶ 37; ECF No. 124, ¶ 37. Simmons disputes that his more recent stays in the STGMU were related to gang activity. ECF No. 124, ¶ 37.

Simmons actively seeks donations and converts to his religion. ECF No. 114, ¶ 38; ECF No. 124, ¶ 38. Specifically, Simmons has admitted to attempting to convert eight other inmates to his self-proclaimed faith.⁴ Id., ¶ 39; id. ¶ 39; see also ECF No. 115-1, p. 85. Five of the inmates Simmons identifies as members of his faith are also identified by the DOC as "validated members of a security threat group, and one other is a suspected member of such a group." ECF No. 114, ¶ 40. Simmons acknowledges that "yes, some converts may be gang members." ECF No. 124, ¶ 40.

Simmons' work, Doctrine and Ethics of a Seeker, sets out some of the beliefs and practices of his religion. Styling himself as "Prince A. A. Enoch Herald of the New Age," Simmons' followers are expected to follow the "vows of Enoch," as Simmons interprets them.⁵ ECF No. 114, ¶¶ 43-44; ECF No. 124, ¶¶ 43-44. The Defendants point out that haircuts are not mentioned as religious requirement in Simmons' work, but Simmons maintains that his religious requirements of "grooming" and "hygiene" include regular haircuts. Id, ¶ 49; id, 49.

Simmons' pleadings also include allegations relating to the nature of the mental health treatment he received. At all times relevant to this case, Simmons was assigned a "C" stability code. Id., ¶ 50; id. ¶ 50.⁶ This designation means that he was being provided with mental health treatment but had not been diagnosed as having a serious mental illness. Id. Simmons was seen by a prison psychiatrist on March 6, 2017, and by Psychology Services Associate Novak (Chiovitti) on April 17, 2017. ECF No. 114, ¶¶ 51-52. After both appointments, it was concluded that Simmons was not in need of any further psychiatric or psychological treatment. Id. The prison's Psychiatric ReviewTeam (PRT) met with Simmons on April 26, 2017 for a regular scheduled review. Id., ¶ 53. Simmons disputes this, stating that he reported "night terrors" and sleep loss but received no treatment for either. ECF No. 124, ¶ 51. He also denies seeing Defendant Novak on April 17, 2017 and does not recall meeting with the PRT. ECF No. 124, ¶¶ 52-53. The Defendants contend that Simmons continued to receive regular psychiatric care, including being seen by psychiatric providers on June 8, 2017, June 15, 2017, June 28, 2017, and July 28, 2017. ECF No. 114, ¶¶ 54-57. Simmons does not recall the June 8, 2017 consultation and denies that he met with Defendant Novak on June 15, 2017. ECF No. 124, ¶¶ 54-55. He does not dispute meeting with Defendant Novak, during which he reported difficulties sleeping and the hearing of voices. ECF No. 114, ¶ 56; ECF No. 124, ¶ 56.

During the month of June, 2017, while Simmons' psychiatric needs were being assessed, Simmons was issued several misconducts. First, he received a misconduct on June 14, 2017 for threatening a prison employee, using abusive language, and refusing to obey an order. Id., ¶ 58; id. 58. Simmons...