T. Anderson v. Superintendent Coleman
179 M.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 14, 2016Background
- Petitioner Thomas Anderson, an inmate at SCI Fayette, alleged that on January 14, 2011 he was beaten during an altercation with Officer Shipley and multiple unnamed corrections officers; he suffered facial injuries and was allegedly dragged and abused while handcuffed.
- Anderson alleges Officers Shipley and Jennings used excessive force; Lt. Bursey witnessed and failed to intervene; medical staff (Dr. Herbik, Administrator Berrier) failed to properly examine, report, or treat him; and supervisory officials (Superintendent Coleman, Deputy Armel, Captain Trempus, Unit Manager Mankey) ignored his requests for relief and left him in restrictive housing without adequate clothing or bedding.
- Anderson sought declaratory relief and damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Eighth Amendment excessive force and deliberate indifference) and state tort claims (assault and battery).
- Corrections respondents and Dr. Herbik filed preliminary objections arguing (1) Anderson failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Department of Corrections’ grievance procedure (DC-ADM 804 / PLRA principles), and (2) Officer Shipley is immune from state-law intentional tort claims under sovereign immunity; they also argued insufficient personal involvement by supervisory defendants for § 1983 claims.
- The court accepted the respondents’ affidavit showing Anderson did not file or exhaust grievances related to the incident and Anderson’s amended petition did not allege exhaustion or appeal to final review.
- The Court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the petition: federal § 1983 claims dismissed for failure to exhaust; state intentional tort claims dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to exhaust administrative remedies for § 1983 Eighth Amendment claims | Anderson alleged Eighth Amendment excessive force and deliberate indifference and proceeded to court | Respondents argued PLRA/Dept. grievance policy requires proper exhaustion (appeal to Superintendent and final review) and Anderson did not file/exhaust grievances | Court: Dismissed federal § 1983 claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies |
| Personal involvement of supervisory defendants in § 1983 claims | Anderson alleged supervisors ignored requests and failed to discipline staff, amounting to deliberate indifference | Respondents argued no pleaded facts showing personal involvement, knowledge, or acquiescence (Rizzo/Rode standards) | Court: Did not reach merits after dismissal for failure to exhaust; lack of pleaded personal involvement noted as insufficient alternative basis |
| State-law intentional torts (assault and battery) against Officer Shipley | Anderson alleged assault/battery by Officer Shipley | Respondents argued sovereign immunity bars liability for Commonwealth employees acting within scope of duties | Court: Dismissed intentional tort claims under sovereign immunity |
| Medical deliberate indifference / failure to report by medical staff | Anderson alleged Dr. Herbik and Berrier failed to report, examine, or properly treat his injuries | Dr. Herbik argued failure to exhaust and that facts insufficient to state Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim | Court: Federal claims dismissed for failure to exhaust; factual sufficiency not reached on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Pa. State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police v. Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, 909 A.2d 413 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (standard for accepting well-pleaded facts on preliminary objections)
- Kittrell v. Watson, 88 A.3d 1091 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (prison grievance exhaustion required under Department policy)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (proper exhaustion requires compliance with agency’s procedural rules)
- Morgalo v. Gorniak, 134 A.3d 1139 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (Department grievance system and exhaustion requirements)
- McCray v. Department of Corrections, 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (scope of inmate grievance system under 37 Pa. Code § 93.9)
- LaFrankie v. Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (sovereign immunity protects Commonwealth employees acting within scope of duties from intentional-tort liability)
- Humphrey v. Department of Corrections, 939 A.2d 987 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (exhaustion requirement for prison federal claims; preliminary-objection standard)
- Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (3d Cir. 1988) (personal involvement requirement for supervisory liability under § 1983)