Watson v. Wetzel

1

DEVON WATSON, Plaintiff, v. JOHN WETZEL and GEORGE LITTLE, Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-3246

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

December 12, 2024

OPINION DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ECF NO. 55 - GRANTED

JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Devon Watson spent roughly five years on the Restricted Release List in conditions he asserts were similar to solitary confinement. He claims that this stay worsened his already precarious mental state. Watson brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the conditions and duration of his confinement violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants seek summary judgment, arguing that Watson has failed to establish any constitutional violation. In the alternative, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background^[1]

On May 24, 2013, Devon Watson began his incarceration after being convicted of robbery, aggravated harassment by a prisoner, aggravated assault, and simple assault. In December of 2017, Watson was transferred from SCI Graterford to SCI Fayette for the Special Management Unit (“SMU”) program. His progress through the SMU program was slow but misconduct free. On November 20, 2018, Watson was released into the general population for his Phase 1 probationary period. Just two weeks later, he received two staff assault misconducts. The parties disagree on the nature of the charges. Defendants aver that Watson was the aggressor, see PSOF ¶¶ 32-33, while Watson avers that he was not, see DSOF ¶¶ 32-33.

Notwithstanding, on April 15, 2019, Watson was removed from the SMU program for placement on the Restricted Release List (“RRL”). The SCI Fayette staff had recommended Watson's removal, citing his aggressive and unpredictable behavior toward staff and other inmates. At that point, Watson had amassed sixty-one misconducts, including nineteen misconducts for assault, two misconducts for fighting, and one for arson. Secretary Wetzel approved the placement on May 13, 2019. On May 16, 2019, Watson was notified of his placement on the RRL.

1. The Restricted Release List

The RRL is a status assigned to inmates who pose a threat to others' safety or the orderly running of the prison. In placing an inmate on the RRL, the decisionmaker(s) consider: “a. Assaultive history against staff; b. Assaultive history against inmates; c. sexual abuse history; d. Escape history, or serious escape attempt; and/or e.^[2]Threat to the orderly operation of a facility (i.e. attempting to organize inmates, demonstrated involvement in a Security Threat Group [STG] that poses a risk to the security of a facility, etc.).” DSOF ¶ 5; PSOF ¶ 5.

Before being placed on the RRL, the Facility Manager will provide various documents to the Executive Deputy Secretary for Institutional Operations (“EDSI”), including the Restricted Release List Placement/Annual RRL Review/Removal Request Form (RRL Form), a written rationale for the placement, DC-46 Vote Sheets, and “a current Psychological Evaluation.” DSOF ¶ 7; PSOF ¶ 7. It is ultimately the Secretary's role to determine whether to initially place and later keep the inmate on the RRL.2 Secretary Wetzel has also required and reviewed recent Psychological Evaluations when conducting these reviews.

Once an inmate is on the RRL, psychology staff are required to conduct a mental health assessment of the inmate at least every 90 days. Each inmate in administrative custody is also seen weekly by his counselor. Further, the inmate's RRL status must be reviewed annually. To that end, the “Counselor is tasked with initiating DC-46 Vote Sheet on the RRL annual review and the Unit Manager is tasked with creating the RRL Form for the review.” DSOF ¶ 10; PSOF ¶ 10. The Program Review Committee (“PRC”) reviews the status of the inmates for the first two months while in administrative custody. After that, the PRC interviews the inmate at least every 90 days. Watson received this 90-day reviews beginning October 31, 2019. He also received his annual reviews.

2. The Intensive Management Unit (“IMU”)

At some point, Watson was placed in the IMU program. Defendants indicate that the IMU is a program for inmates with assaultive histories to work their way out of the RRL and back into general population through socialization and skills training. DSOF ¶¶ 15-17. Defendants cast the program as “6-tiered phase system based on the inmate's adjustment and attainment of goals/objectives and is designed to be a three-year program that progressively increases inmates' privileges until their removal from RRL, and back into general population in Phase 1 of the program.” Id. ¶ 18. As the inmate moves through the phases toward Phase 1, he is given more privileges including out of cell time and socialization. Id. ¶ 22.

Watson takes issue with Defendants' characterization of the program, arguing that its stated goals are merely perfunctory such that the program offers no meaningful opportunity to reintegrate into the general population. PSOF ¶ 15-17. It appears Watson made it only to Phase 4 of the program before regressing after accruing a misconduct for assaulting a staff member. See ECF No. 55, Ex. I.

3. Conditions and Duration of Watson's Confinement and His Mental Health Struggles

The parties also dispute the actual conditions of Watson's confinement. Defendants aver that at Phase 6 of the IMU, an inmate still receives the following privileges: “2 hours per day of exercise out of cell, 7 days per week; 1 phone call per week; video visits 1 time per week; kiosk privileges; radio/tv privileges; in-cell programming; weekly unit management contact and psychological contact as required by DOC 13.8.1; showers 3 times per week; commissary privileges; access to mini law-library and recreational book; and in-cell games, like puzzles.” DSOF ¶ 23. Watson avers that the reality is much different in that he is far more isolated and far more restricted than even Phase 6 of the IMU provides. See ECF No. 48, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 35-44; see also ECF 56-3

The parties also dispute the state of Watson's mental health. Defendants aver that an April 20, 2023, Special Psychological Assessment of Watson described his mental status as “largely unremarkable.” DSOF ¶¶ 47-49; see also ECF No. 55, Ex. L. Watson notes that in the very same evaluation, Watson describes himself as manic, detailing past hallucinations which would tell him to hurt himself and/or kill others, past issues with depression and anxiety, suicidal ideations as recent as a few weeks prior, and insomnia which has, at times, caused him to be awake for two to three days before crashing. Id.

Once on the RRL, Watson never made it off until he was released from the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections altogether in September of 2024. In all, Watson spent some sixty-four months on the RRL.

B. Procedural Background

Watson filed suit on August 18, 2023. See ECF No. 1. On November 29, 2023, the case was reassigned from the late Judge Smith to the undersigned. See ECF No. 16. On February 29, 2023, Counsel entered their appearance for Watson. See ECF Nos. 35, 36. On June 11, 2024, the Court granted Watson's unopposed Motion to Amend his Complaint. See ECF No. 45. An Amended Complaint was filed on June 14, 2024, seeking an injunction and asserting two claims each against Defendants John Wetzel, George Little, and Michael Wenerowicz. See ECF No. 46. In Count I, Watson asserts a violation of his procedural due process rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. In Count II, Watson asserts a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Each claim arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and are asserted against Defendants in their individual capacity.

On October 2, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Watson has failed to establish any constitutional violation and that they are entitled to qualified immunity. See ECF No. 55. The matter is fully briefed and ready for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Summary Judgment - Review of Applicable Law

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A disputed fact is “material” if proof of its existence or nonexistence might affect the outcome of the case under applicable substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). An issue of material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. at 257.

The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once such a showing has been made, the non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings with affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories or the like in order to demonstrate specific material facts which give rise to a genuine issue. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (stating that the non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts”). The party opposing the motion must produce evidence to show the existence of every element essential to its case, which it bears the burden of proving at trial, because “a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The court must consider the evidence in the...