Talley v. Pa. Dep't of Corrs.

1

QUINTEZ TALLEY, Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 19-1589-KSM

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

March 22, 2024

MEMORANDUM

MARSTON, J.

Pro se Plaintiff Quintez Talley, an inmate at SCI Camp Hill filed the instant lawsuit against then-United States Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick (“Judge Mehalchick”)^[1], the United States of America (“United States”), the Clerks' Office and an unknown clerk of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (with the United States “Federal Defendants”)^[2], and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and various officials and employees thereof (“DOC Defendants”)^[3]relating to the improper withdrawal of funds from his inmate account. Before the Court are three motions from the DOC Defendants^[4] (Doc. Nos. 27, 43, 58), a motion to dismiss from the Federal Defendants (Doc. 56), a statement of interest on behalf of Judge Mehalchick (Doc. No. 57), and Plaintiff's motion to transfer this case to the Court of Federal Claims (Doc. No. 60). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the DOC Defendants' motions, grant the Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as uncontested, dismiss Judge Mehalchick, and deny Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff Quintez Talley is and has been a prolific litigator throughout the Third Circuit. This lawsuit relates to some of that litigation activity. In 2015, while he was incarcerated at SCI Greene, Plaintiff filed three separate civil actions against various prison officials in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (“Middle District”). (Doc. No. 9 at ¶ 8); see Talley v. Glessner, 15-cv-407 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2015); Talley v. Wetzel, 15-cv-1170 (M.D. Pa. June 15, 2015); Talley v. Wetzel, 15-cv-1698 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 1, 2015). Each case was assigned in some capacity to Judge Mehalchick. (Doc. No. 9 at ¶ 8.) And in each case, contemporaneous with filing his complaints, Plaintiff filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Id. at ¶ 9.) With these motions, Plaintiff also filed authorizations permitting the agency holding him in custody to send a certified copy of his inmate account statement to the Clerk of Court and to “calculate and disburse funds from [his] trust account (or institutional equivalent) in the amounts specific by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).” See, e.g., Doc. No. 3, Talley v. Glessner, 15-cv-407 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2015). Judge Mehalchick granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in each case. (Doc. No. 9 at ¶ 11.)

Plaintiff claims that while at SCI Greene, he had no issues with the prison staff withdrawing funds and intermittently paying his filing fees. (Id. at ¶ 14.) However, this harmony would not last. On January 27, 2017,^[5]Plaintiff was transferred to SCI Graterford, where Defendant Cynthia Link was acting superintendent/warden. (Id. at ¶ 12.) A few months later, on March 8, 2017, while still incarcerated at SCI Graterford, Plaintiff received a deposit of $15,000 to his inmate account. (Id. at ¶ 15.) That same day, Plaintiff's monthly statement showed that $950.20 was deducted from his inmate account by staff at SCI Graterford to cover the remaining balance of his filing fees. (Id. at ¶ 16; see also id. at 18 (Plaintiff's inmate account statement showing that $250.20, $350, and $350 were deducted from his account for “Federal Filing Fees”).) But then through correspondence with the Clerk's Office of the Middle District, Plaintiff discovered that these funds were never received by the court, and he still had an outstanding balance of $950.20. (Id. at ¶¶ 16-18.)

Along with the $950.20 deducted for his filing fees, Plaintiff's inmate account statement reflected that $1,123.31 were withdrawn for “institutional fines.” (Doc. No. 9 at ¶ 25; see also id. at 18 (Plaintiff's inmate account statement).) Plaintiff avers that these deductions were the result of a conspiracy against him from his time at SCI-Benner in which, under the supervision of Defendant Ferguson, Defendant Ellenberger was ‘“recommending' Plaintiff's prison account be assessed without any form of post-deprivation relief.” (Id. at ¶ 29.) Plaintiff denies ever committing any misconduct that would warrant such fines and claims that the process through which these institutional fines were eventually deducted from his account was “constitutionally insufficient.” (Id. at ¶¶ 28, 30.) In particular, Plaintiff alleges that he was never provided adequate notice of these deductions, that he was not provided a hearing to challenge the removal of these funds under DOC Policy DC-ADM 801 because such hearings are unavailable where “costs are known,” and that he was never provided an opportunity to appeal these deductions because the issue was outside of the limited bases for appeals under DC-ADM 801. (Id. at ¶¶ 29-30.)

B. Procedural History

1. Initial Screening

On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in this case, which asserted claims for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the Fourth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 2.) He also asserted a claim for replevin. (Id.) It is undisputed that before filing his initial complaint, Plaintiff never filed a grievance regarding the deduction of $1,123.31 for his institutional fines.^[6] (Doc. No. 27-2; Doc. No. 43-2 (affidavit from Rhonda House, Facility Grievance Coordinator providing that Plaintiff never filed a grievance for any deductions from his DOC inmate account).)

Plaintiff's case was assigned to the Honorable Judge Timothy J. Savage who, consistent with this Court's obligation to screen the complaints of plaintiffs granted in forma pauperis status, dismissed the complaint in its entirety. (Doc. Nos. 5, 6.) Judge Savage held that Plaintiff's federal law claims failed and refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. (Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiff then filed the Amended Complaint currently before the Court, which introduced numerous additional Defendants, including the Federal Defendants, Judge Mehalchick, and multiple of DOC officials. (Doc. No. 9.) The Amended Complaint asserts claims against all Defendants for violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, civil conspiracy under both § 1983 and Pennsylvania law, interference with contract, conversion, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel. (Id.) It also asserts claims against the DOC Defendants for violations of the RICO Act and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Id.) All claims are against the Defendants in their official and individual capacities. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Judge Savage shortly thereafter issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, finding that it failed to cure the defects identified in the Court's prior Memorandum. (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 11.)

On appeal, the Third Circuit largely affirmed the Court's analysis and agreed that the Amended Complaint did not cure many of the deficiencies outlined in the Court's prior Memorandum. (Doc. No. 17.) However, the Third Circuit vacated and remanded the Court's decision as to Plaintiff's due process claim related to his institutional fines. (Id.) And since this claim provided the Court a basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the Third Circuit also remanded so that the Court could rule on Plaintiff's state law claims. (Id.) Thus, following Plaintiff's appeal, the only claims that remain are his claim for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, solely as it pertains to the deduction of his institutional fines, and his state law claims.^[7]

2. Remand and Motions to Dismiss

On remand, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was ordered to be served, and the case was reassigned to the undersigned shortly thereafter on March 27, 2023. (Doc. No. 31.) All Defendants filed motions to dismiss, except Judge Mehalchick who was the subject of a Statement of Interest filed by the United States. (Doc. Nos. 27, 43, 56, 57, 58.) After the first group of DOC Defendants filed their motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 27), Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to take discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. No. 36).^[8]The Court granted Plaintiff's motion. (Doc. No. 37.) The Court then held a Zoom status conference on June 27, 2023, during which the parties agreed, and the Court held, that the DOC Defendants' motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 27, 43, 58),^[9] which rely on an extrinsic affidavit, would be converted into motions for summary judgment as to the issue of exhaustion. (See June 27, 2023 Hr'g Draft Tr. at 20:3-21:4; Doc. Nos. 38, 59.) Plaintiff informed the Court during that same status conference that, despite having filed a Rule 56(d) motion, he would not need discovery to respond to the Defendants' motions. (June 27, 2023 Hr'g Draft Tr. at 20:2221:4.) Plaintiff also orally requested, and the Court granted, an extension of time for Plaintiff to file his responses to Defendants' motions because he was being transferred to another prison and needed time to receive his belongings. (Id. at 21:5-24.) After Plaintiff confirmed he had been successfully moved and retrieved his belongings (Doc. No. 50), and once all Defendants were properly served and submitted dispositive motions, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to all pending motions no later than September 15, 2023. (Doc. No. 59.) Rather than filing a response to any of the pending motions, on August 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to transfer the case ...