Simms v. Houser

1

SHAWN M. SIMMS, Plaintiff v. MORRIS L. HOUSER, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 3:21-0321

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

November 24, 2021

MEMORANDUM

MALACHY E. MANNION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. Background

Plaintiff an inmate confined in the Rockview State Correctional Institution (SCI-Rockview), Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, filed the above captioned civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. (Doc. 1). The named Defendants are the following SCI-Rockview employees: Deputy Warden Houser, Deputy Warden Rivello, LPM Miller, Security Lt. Sherman, Security Captain VanGorder, PREA Lt. Rutherford and Dr. Byerlee. Id. (Doc. 15).

Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Doc. 25). The motion is fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendant's motion to dismiss. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, (Doc. 4) and Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint. (Doc. 42). Because Plaintiff cannot prevail on the merits of his §1983 claim, his motion for preliminary injunction will be denied. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion to supplement will also be denied.

II. Allegations in Complaint

Plaintiff's complaint states in toto:

On 4-6-20, I wrote a letter to an outside DOC official about my problems here in Rockview that entailed PREA related issues. The matter was referred to defendant Byerlee (psych at Rockview). I then engaged in constitutionally protected conduct (free speech via PREA report; 42 U.S.C. §15601) and told Byerlee that PREA violations were enacted on me by multiple people in multiple places over the course of 10 years (this is generally paraphrased). Places include Rockview, SCI-Greensburg, and my county jail. Byerlee intentionally sabotaged certain parts of my report that lead to an adverse action; a misconduct (DC-141). The misconduct exposed highly sensitive medical type information and also labeled me as an informant for making an official report to staff on a fellow inmate(s). The misconduct was then entered into the DOC computer which enabled non-essential staff to view it and show other inmates. As an additional consequence, the gang members involved in the PREA violations seen this information, resulting in a “hit” being put on me. The causal connection is that the 141 misconduct was based on the report Byerlee sabotaged. Punishing PREA victims or exposing their reports to non-essential staff serves no governmental, penological or public interest and the actions of the defendant would certainly deter victims from making a report in the future. I also aver that this information shouldn't ever be exposed in any way under the well-established rape shield laws.

Acting off of defendant Byerlee's fraudulent report, defendant Rutherford and Miller did a “PREA investigation.” The constitutionally protected conduct was the PREA report. While these 2 were not involved in taking the report, it is their responsibility to do a “follow-up, ” monitor for retaliation, monitor victims, provide counseling, and make sure that victims can meet with staff. If they would've followed their own policy/procedures, the report could've been corrected, and a proper investigation would've been done. Instead, they violated their own policy/procedures and never once came to speak to me about the report. Since they violated policy, the adverse action was a 141 misconduct that exposed highly sensitive medical type information to non-essential personnel (via DOC computer) that also labeled plaintiff as a “snitch.” Inmate also seen this 141 misconduct and as a result, the gang members who enacted the PREA violations on him put a “hit' on plaintiff, the causal connection is the sabotaged report and subsequently botched investigation coupled with blatant policy/procedure violations resulted in the 141 misconduct and threats by gang members punishing PREA victims or exposing their reports serves no governmental, penological or public interest and the actions of defendants would certainly deter victims from making a report in the future. I further aver that this type of information should never be exposed for any reason (especially to non-essential personnel) under the well-established rape shield laws.

On 10-7-20, PRC (defendants Houser, Miller and Rivello) gave the orders to let me back out to population. This made me choose between being stabbed to death/catching COVID 19 or staying in the psychological torture cell (solitary confinement). I refused to go to population to preserve my life and I was given a misconduct for doing so. I submitted an “inmates version” which was read by the hearing examiner, then forwarded to security. Nothing happened to my benefit, only to my detriment (30 days punishment). I finished exhausting to final review with no change. This process was then repeated 3 more times with no results (115-20, 12-3-20 and 12-30-20). The only variation was on 11-5-20 when PRC intentionally ordered me to go to an “Enhanced Quarantine” Housing unit with confirmed COVID 19 cases during a mass outbreak within Rockview (including the Housing unit I was supposed to go to). I tried to grieve the PREA issue, but since a misconduct was issued, DOC policy prevents me from filing grievances on misconducts/ issues misconducts were issued over. The misconduct was later dismissed without prejudice but the damage was already done. This also prevented me from remedies associated with misconducts. There are no other remedies available to me.

On 1-14-21, I was placed on A/C pending transfer to the “PCU” in SCI-Forest where it is notorious for violence and a high concentration of the same gang members I'm seeking protection from.

(Doc. 1 at 7-11).

On February 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant action in which he alleges Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations as well as conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) and 42 U.S.C. §1986 and intentional infliction of emotional distress, Id. at 11-17. For relief, Plaintiff seeks nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief in the form of “body cameras with audio for all DOC staff', changes in policy related to “grieving incidents that misconducts were issued over”, and “a change in policy preventing any PREA related information to be available to nonessential staff' and “preventing misconducts being issued to PREA victims.” Id. at 19. Plaintiff also requests “an outside party (outside the DOC) to investigate staff misconduct alleged in grievances” and “a change in policy that enables the hearing examiner to put an inmate on P/C per inmate's request.” Id.

Along with the filing of his complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, claiming Defendants are not providing him a safe environment. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff requests an order “placing/keeping him on P/C, giving him a semblance of human contact via electronics he has already paid for, preventing him from being transferred into a prison that exacerbates his situation instead of protecting him from danger, and holding this injunction until the final outcome of the case in full at its earliest convenience, since plaintiff could be ‘shipped' to SCI-Forest at any time.” Id. Attached to Plaintiff's brief in support of his motion are the undisputed authentic documentation regarding his refusal to return to general population, Id.

Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion, arguing that Plaintiff's motion should be denied for Plaintiffs failure to establish the probability of harm, justifying the intervention of the Court. (Doc. 31). Attached to Defendants' brief in opposition are the undisputed authentic documentation regarding Plaintiff's PREA claim. Id.

The undisputed documentation which provides the basis for Plaintiff's complaint, reveals that in response to Plaintiff's April 6, 2020 request for services regarding the filing of a complaint under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, (“PREA”), an April 30, 2020 interview was conducted by Defendant Byerlee of the SCI-Rockview psychology department. (Doc. 31-1 at 8). The interview revealed that Plaintiff “declined to speak about any of the details about the alleged abuse he experienced” and “[h]e made several vague statements," such as “[a]fter you get baited into someone's cell, and with a cellmate, it has made me one angry individual, ” reporting that “the abuse occurred for an 8-9 year period, but stopped when he moved to CB block” and that he is “not going to be a self-loathing person anymore” as he is “not the same person anymore.” Id.

On May 12, 2020 a Sexual Abuse Investigative Summary was prepared by Defendant VanGorder, Intelligence Gathering Captain and was submitted to James C. Barnacle, DOC Director, through Superintendent Mark Garman. (Doc. 31-2 at 3). The summary revealed the following:

Shawn Simms wrote a letter to Ms. Patrone on 4-6-2020 alleging that he had been raped by his cellmates while incarcerated at SCI-Rockview. This investigator attempted to interview inmate Simms on 5-5-2020 out of cell. The inmate refused. This investigator attempted to interview inmate Simms on 5-6-2020 out of cell. The inmate refused again, stating, “I'm good, I'm just trying to get my Z code.” This investigator attempted to interview inmate Simms again on 5-12-2020 and again the inmate refused. An assessment was then made into the credibility of inmate Simms.

(Doc. 31-2 at 3). A review of the documentation gathered at the interview revealed the following:

All documentation has been reviewed and it has been assessed that the inmate is attempting to utilize vague allegations as a means to manipulate PREA for a Z code. The

...