Williams v. Del. Cnty. Bd. of Prison Inspectors

RASHAD WILLIAMS v. DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD OF PRISON INSPECTORS, et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-CV-4348

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

July 2, 2018

MEMORANDUM

KEARNEY, J.

Rashad Williams claims state actors abused his constitutional rights while detaining him at the George W. Hill Correctional Facility and in the Delaware County Courthouse holding cell. His third amended pro se complaint alleges facts, but no legal theories, against the Delaware County Board of Prison Inspectors, Community Education Centers, Inc., Delaware County, James Hyman, Michael Hellriegel, David Byrne, John Riley, Jr., and numerous corrections officers and employees of the Prison.¹ After three attempts, he fails to plead the required basis for a civil rights claim. His pleaded facts, especially as to denying him 75% of his meals over four days, may afford relief but Mr. Williams needs to tell us who did what, why the entities could be liable based on a policy or custom, and his specific legal claims. While we can liberally construe his pro se allegations, we cannot create legal theories or assume liability simply because an entity is involved with a prison or an individual works at a prison. While we would be inclined to deny Mr. Williams yet another opportunity (his fourth) to amend, we will do so today in the event he can tie the alleged abuses to a custom or practice of an institution or to an individual's specific conduct towards him.

I. Pleaded facts²

Mr. Williams alleges a list of abuses suffered as a detainee while incarcerated at the George W. Hill Correctional Facility (Prison) between August 2015 and May 2016, when he transferred from the Prison to the State Correctional Institution at Graterford. Beginning on August 25, 2015, Mr. Williams alleges Officer Eli Hitchens and "cert member Walker" "shook down" his cell causing his glasses to break, "while being observed by C/O Hillard."³ On September 16, 2015, Mr. Williams received a misconduct report for allegedly fighting, and placed in disciplinary segregation.⁴ He received a notice of hearing scheduled for September 22 and 23, 2015 before hearing examiner Abt.⁵ On September 17, 2015, Officer Gloria Jenkins denied him access to speak with a counselor, sergeant, or lieutenant.⁶

Mr. Williams alleges his situation worsened toward the end of September 2015 when, on September 23, he "donned the red clothing of maximum security," and some unidentified actor at the Prison moved him to maximum security, and from then on, correctional officers handcuffed him during out of cell activities "via" Sergeant Carter.⁷ Several days later, Chief of Security Richard Leach ordered Mr. Williams moved to a restricted housing unit.⁸ The same day he moved to the restricted housing unit, Officers Jenkins and Hitchens used inflammatory remarks towards Mr. Williams, and Officer Hitchens threatened him with bodily harm.⁹ Mr. Williams submitted a request to Superintendent Riley "to look into these occurrences."¹⁰ On September 29 and 30, 2015, Mr. Williams alleges the removal of food from his tray and the denial of dinner under the supervision of Officers Jenkins and Hitchens, and Sergeant Baldwin.¹¹ Officer Jenkins denied Mr. Williams recreation on October 1 and 5, 2015.¹²

On October 13, 2015, the Sheriff's Department put him in a cell with "violent prone inmates" at the Delaware County Courthouse while awaiting an "afternoon court" appearance.¹³The same day, Officer Jenkins denied Mr. Williams a change of clothes.¹⁴ On his return to the Prison from the Delaware County Courthouse, Mr. Williams alleges he signed a "contract" with Sergeant Carter in which Sergeant Carter promised Mr. Williams "release from confinement."¹⁵ Despite the agreement, Sergeant Carter moved Mr. Williams back to "10-D" - presumably a maximum security unit - on October 20, 2015 and was told "his matter will be further investigated."¹⁶ Officer Jenkins denied Mr. Williams recreation, a request to see a counselor, and a change of clothing after wearing the same clothing for 40 days.¹⁷

On October 29, 2015, Mr. Williams requested an interview with the Criminal Investigation Division.¹⁸ On November 6, 2015, Mr. Williams had an interview with Detective Corsi of the Criminal Investigation Division.¹⁹ He does not allege facts regarding the substance of his meeting with Detective Corsi.

After meeting with Detective Corsi on November 6, 2015, Mr. Williams returned to the restrictive housing unit at the Prison.²⁰ He alleges the denial of several meals after his meeting with Detective Corsi, one at the direction of Sergeant Baldwin and "under the supervision of all shifts" and "both shifts," but does not allege a specific individual supervisor for any shift.²¹ Mr. Williams then saw the Prison's psychologist who admitted him to a "secured maximum unit" for suicide watch.²² After being on suicide watch for two days, the Prison returned him to "10 B max" on the orders of Chief of Security Leach, and the Prison again denied him meals for two more days under the supervision of "all shifts," but not identifying any supervisor or any individual who denied him meals.²³ Mr. Williams alleges he overheard Sergeant Baldwin tell block workers to starve him.²⁴

On November 23, 2015, Mr. Williams met with his attorney, Joseph Casey, in Philadelphia. Mr. Casey told Mr. Williams he (Mr. Casey) went to the Prison to visit Mr.Williams on October 23, November 6, and November 9, 2015 but the Prison denied the visits, ostensibly because Mr. Williams did not want to see him.²⁵

On November 30, 2015 - again, presumably for a court appearance - Mr. Williams went to the Delaware County Courthouse where the Sheriff's Department again placed him in "max cell #9" with violent prone inmates putting him at risk of "psychological abuse, sexual predation, and verbal insults."²⁶ Although he alleges housing with violent prone inmates put him at risk for abuse, he does not allege actual harm.

The alleged abuse at the Prison continued into December 2015 when Mr. Williams received food smelling like feces under the supervision of a "John Doe c/o"; finally received clean clothing; Sergeant Baldwin denied him personal property; Officer Jenkins denied him phone calls, razors, and commissary; Sergeant Baldwin and an unidentified shift sergeant denied him meals and had food removed from trays; and Officer Jenkins denied him access to medical treatment after suffering a panic/anxiety attack.²⁷

On January 10, 2016, Mr. Williams attempted to speak with Chief Security Officer Leach, but Mr. Leach "flagged him off."²⁸ Throughout January 2016, Mr. Williams alleges Officer Jenkins and Sergeant Baldwin both threatened him with bodily harm; Officer Jenkins threatened him with "further punishment" and denied him a counselor visit; and non-party "D. Swider," a grievance coordinator, denied him access to grievances after filing "countless requests/complaints" regarding the alleged abuses.²⁹

Mr. Williams alleges continuing deprivations throughout the spring 2016, alleging Chief of Security Leach denied him access to a haircut; the prison librarian, Dana Keith, denied him access to the courts "i.e. legal copies, case laws, legal references;" and under the supervision of Brian Conley, someone opened mail from his attorney, Joseph Casey, outside of Mr. Williams'spresence; and, the Prison denied him a reasonable opportunity to attend Ta'leem and Jumu'ah, Muslim religious services.³⁰

Mr. Williams asked Chief Security Officer Leach why the Prison kept Mr. Williams on "F.O.R (forever on restriction)" and, on May 11, 2016, filed a final grievance.³¹ Mr. Williams alleges he never received any responses to his grievances from the Prison, and the Prison eventually retaliated against him for filing these grievances by transferring him to State Correctional Institution at Graterford on May 13, 2016.³²

II. Analysis

All served Defendants move to dismiss Mr. Williams's complaint for failure to state a claim. Delaware County moves to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint for failing, as a matter of law, to state a claim against it under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs.³³ The Prison Board, CEC, and individual defendants together move to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.

The operative complaint is the Third Amended Complaint. In his Third Amended Complaint, Mr. Williams brings his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but does not plead claims or the relief sought. After Defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, Mr. Williams filed a "Motion to Oppose Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint," which we considered a response to the motions to dismiss.³⁴ In his response, Mr. Williams concedes he omitted legal claims in his Third Amended Complaint; he refers Defendants "back to the other two (2) previous complaints" but does not incorporate the earlier complaints.³⁵ We cannot consider the Amended Complaint or the Second Amended Complaint. The filing of the Third Amended Complaint "supersedes" the earlier complaints and "renders [them] of no legal effect, unless the amended complaint specifically refers to or adopts the earlier pleading."³⁶ Mr. Williams did not incorporate his earlier complaints. In an abundance of cautionto preserve a pro se prisoner's efforts to challenge perceived civil rights claims, we granted Mr. Williams leave to file a fourth amended complaint combining both facts and a legal claim. He did not do so. So we are left with one pleading for review on a motion to dismiss.

We construe the Third Amended Complaint as alleging a § 1983 violation against the Defendants. As Mr. Williams proceeds pro se, we construe his allegations liberally.³⁷

Section 1983 "'is not itself a source of substantive rights,' but merely provides 'a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'"³⁸ A plaintiff seeking relief under § 1983 must plead "defendants, acting under color of law, violated the plaintiff's federal constitutional or statutory rights, and thereby...