Timmons v. Brittain

1

BRANDON TIMMONS, Plaintiff v. K. BRITTAIN, et al., Defendants

No. 1:21-cv-00798

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

November 28, 2022

MEMORANDUM

KANE JUDGE

On May 3, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Brandon Timmons (“Timmons”), initiated the abovecaptioned case by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several Defendants employed by State Correctional Institution-Frackville (“SCI-Frackville”). (Doc No. 1.) The case is presently proceeding on Timmons's amended complaint. (Doc. No. 38.) Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. (Doc. No. 39.) For the following reasons, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Timmons initiated this case through the filing of a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants tampered with his food in violation of his constitutional rights. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on November 22, 2021. (Doc. No. 19.) In response Timmons moved for leave to amend and supplement the complaint. (Doc. Nos. 32, 35.) The Court granted the motions on April 20, 2022 and directed the Clerk of Court to docket the proposed complaint as Timmons's amended complaint. (Doc. No. 37.) The amended complaint was docketed that day and remains the operative pleading in this case. (Doc. No 38.)

According to the allegations in the amended complaint, Timmons filed a prison grievance on September 30, 2020, complaining of alleged abuse by Defendant Burgess (“Burgess”). (Id. at 3.) While the grievance was being investigated, Burgess brought a food tray to Timmons on December 4, 2020 that contained a fish sandwich and a packet of tartar sauce. (Id.) Timmons put the tartar sauce on the sandwich, ate it, and noticed that it had “an extremely awful taste.” (Id.) Timmons looked at the tartar sauce packet and noticed that it had previously been opened and resealed and that it appeared to contain a “foreign substance.” (Id.) When Burgess returned to collect the food tray, Timmons asked him about this and Burgess allegedly ignored the question. (Id.) Approximately 15-20 minutes later, Timmons fell ill with diarrhea, nausea, and a headache. (Id.) Burgess allegedly told Timmons later that day that he had tampered with the food because Timmons had filed a grievance against him. (Id.) Timmons filed another grievance on December 21, 2020, alleging that prison officials were interfering with his mail, and he allegedly received several more food items that month that had been opened. (Id. at 3-4.)

Defendants allegedly continued to tamper with Timmons's food in January 2021. (Id. at 4.) In that month, Defendant Applegate (“Applegate”) allegedly gave him “a milk that had a juice packet poured in” and Defendant Warford (“Warford”) allegedly gave him a bag of chips that was “saturated and contaminated with a foreign liquid.” (Id.) Timmons allegedly asked Warford about the liquid and Warford told him that he should not have filed a lawsuit and threatened to arrange for another inmate to attack Timmons if Timmons ever filed a grievance against Warford. (Id.)

Other incidents of food tampering allegedly occurred in the ensuing months. (Id.) On March 2, 2021, an unknown officer allegedly gave Timmons two syrup packets that had been opened and resealed “with dirt floating in them.” (Id.) The officer allegedly told Timmons that the food tampering was not going to stop and that it was because of Timmons filing lawsuits.

(Id.)^[1]On March 3, 2021, Defendant Najda (“Najda”) allegedly gave Timmons a food tray that had two ketchup packets that had been opened, resealed, and contaminated. (Id.) Najda allegedly told Timmons that substances were being placed in Timmons's food to make him impotent because of the grievances Timmons had filed. (Id.) Najda also allegedly told Timmons that if he filed a grievance against Najda, the grievance would not be considered by prison officials and Najda “would have [Timmons] slashed at whatever jail he went to.” (Id.) On March 7, 2021, Defendant Brennan (“Brennan”) allegedly gave Timmons two more ketchup packets that had been opened and tampered with and allegedly told Timmons that if he filed a grievance about the incident Timmons “would be hung in his cell.” (Id. at 5.)

On March 14, 2021, Defendant Morris (“Morris”) allegedly gave Timmons salad dressing that had been opened and contaminated and a piece of bread that was “soaked in some type of foreign liquid.” (Id.) Morris allegedly said, “take that snitch” and told Timmons that the bread was soaked in toilet water. (Id.) Defendant Scarpati (“Scarpati”) allegedly gave Timmons ketchup packets that had been opened on March 15, 2021 and told Timmons that he was “playing with” Timmons's food so that Timmons would not eat. (Id.) Defendant Walton (“Walton”) allegedly gave Timmons a packet of taco sauce on March 23, 2021 that had been opened and resealed. (Id.)

On April 1, 2021, Defendant Whitney (“Whitney”) allegedly gave Timmons ketchup packets that had been opened and resealed and told Timmons that he had urinated in the packets. (Id.) Whitney allegedly made a “comment about lawsuits” during this exchange. (Id.) On April 9, 2021, Defendant Kimmel (“Kimmel”) allegedly gave Timmons mustard and ketchup packets that had been opened and resealed and allegedly told Timmons that he had spit on Timmons's bread. (Id.)

On May 28, 2021, Timmons noticed a John Doe correctional officer pouring liquid into his food. (Id. at 6.) The officer allegedly told Timmons that if wanted to file lawsuits “he better not eat.” (Id.) Timmons ate the food and noticed that it “smelled and tasted of chemical disinfectant.” (Id.) On May 30, 2021, the same officer allegedly brought him cereal and bread and when Timmons ate the bread, he noticed that he had a slimy substance on his lips and tongue. (Id. at 7.) Timmons looked at the bread and noticed “a glob of hog spit” on it. (Id.) Timmons asked the officer about it, and the officer allegedly responded, “you know what's going on you like to sue and rat.” (Id.) Defendant Brittain was given notice of the alleged food tampering by the other Defendants through the filing of grievances in February 2021 and December 2021, but allegedly did nothing to stop it. (Id.)

Timmons raises claims in the amended complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress, supervisory liability, food contamination and tampering in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, “campaign harassment,” food deprivation in violation of the Eighth Amendment, civil conspiracy, deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 8-10.) He seeks damages and injunctive relief requiring Defendants to stop retaliating against him. (Id. at 11.)

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on May 4, 2022 and moved to stay discovery pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss on May 11, 2022. (Doc. Nos. 39-40.) Timmons filed a brief opposing the motion to dismiss on June 13, 2022. (Doc. No. 48.) Defendants have not filed a reply brief and the deadline for doing so has expired under the Local Rules. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is ripe for disposition. The Court additionally granted the motion to stay discovery on May 11, 2022. (Doc. No. 40.) II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

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. Cnty. 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 from them, 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: “where 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). The Third Circuit has specified that in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state...