153 F. Supp. 3d 678
M.D. Penn.2015Background
- Daniel Lewis (Naseer Shakur) is an inmate serving a life sentence, confined at SCI-Graterford, PA.
- He filed a 1983 complaint against 25 former or current Pennsylvania Department of Corrections employees, most at SCI-Huntingdon and some at central offices.
- He filed an amended 67-page complaint with 148 paragraphs alleging a 3-1/2 year RHU confinement and a broad “custom” of abuses.
- Claims include excessive solitary confinement, falsified misconducts, excessive force, sexual harassment/nude photography, and denial of grievances.
- The court granted in part the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion under PLRA screening, dismissing most claims and all official-capacity monetary claims, while allowing one verbal harassment claim to proceed to be analyzed further under PLRA.
- The court analyzed personal involvement, conspiracy, verbal harassment, and due-process-related claims, concluding most claims fail under Twombly/Iqbal and Sandin standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conspiracy claim viability | Lewis asserts a broad conspiracy among defendants to issue false misconducts and suppress grievances. | Defendants argue complaint lacks specific facts showing agreement or concerted action. | No viable conspiracy; allegations are conclusory and insufficient to show a meeting of the minds. |
| Personal involvement of defendants | Lewis contends supervisory defendants were aware of and tacitly approved abusive practices. | Many defendants were only involved in grievances/appeals; not shown to have violated rights. | Dismissed claims against Wetzel, Bickell, Lawler, Green, Garman, MacIntyre, Lewis, Beard, Barnacle, Varner; some personal-involvement claims against Eckard, Corbin, Keller limited and failed under PLRA screening. |
| Verbal harassment claims | Multiple officers harassed Lewis; some threats alleged. | Verbal harassment alone not a constitutional violation; some claims may escalate with action. | Dismissed except for the April 7, 2011 Lehman incident, which escalated to violence; other verbal threats dismissed. |
| Disciplinary hearings and due process | Mitchell denied witnesses/evidence; sought to call witnesses; due-process violations. | Disciplinary procedures did not create a Sandin-level liberty interest; insufficient atypical/ significant hardship shown. | Overall due-process claims against Mitchell dismissed under Sandin/PLRA screening; no actionable due-process violation established. |
| Official-capacity monetary claims | Requests damages from defendants in their official capacities. | Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity damages. | Official-capacity monetary claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard; not mere conclusory allegations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must show plausible claim, not mere legal conclusions)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (prison disciplinary due-process protections; five Wolff requirements)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (liberty interest analysis focusing on the nature of the deprivation, not language of regulations)
- Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2001) (retaliation claim requires protected activity and adverse action showing causal link)