TRAVIS-BEY v. KLOPOTOWSKI, 4:13-cv-01972

Plaintiffs Latifah Travis-Bey and Naree Abdullah, proceeding pro se, filed a 1983 civil rights action related to conduct at SCI-Mahanoy in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Action originated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, was dismissed as to one plaintiff and transferred to the Middle District for processing.
Plaintiffs named numerous SCI-Mahanoy officials and others, including Datchko, Luquis, Wink, and various unit managers, as defendants.
The court screened the complaint and issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) proposing dismissal of several counts with/without prejudice and partial dismissal of others, with later amendments allowed.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging two claims: count 1 for an Unreasonable Seizure/Loss of Consortium relating to RHU confinement, and count 2 for Procedural Due Process violations in disciplinary proceedings.
The R&R recommends dismissals with prejudice for several defendants and dismissals without prejudice for others, along with denial of further amendment as futile; it also recommends denial of plaintiffs’ motions for appointment of counsel and that the case be closed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim is viable	Travis-Bey asserts confinement conditions caused loss of privileges due to RHU placement following misconduct.	Defendants contend the claim fails to show a deprivation of basic life necessities and deliberate indifference.	Count 1 should be dismissed with prejudice.
Whether the Procedural Due Process claim is viable against defendants	Plaintiff argues denials at hearings and appeals violated due process in disciplinary proceedings.	Defendants argue no personal involvement and lack of due process violations under §1983.	Count 2 should be dismissed with prejudice; defendants properly dismissed for lack of personal involvement.
Whether defendants can be sued under §1983 on a theory of respondeat superior	Plaintiff attempts to impose liability on supervisory defendants for subordinates’ actions.	The court should not permit respondeat superior liability in §1983 claims.	Dismissal with prejudice of all non-personally involved defendants; no liability for supervisory status.
Whether to appoint counsel for plaintiff	Plaintiff is unable to afford counsel and asserts complexity of issues.	No constitutional right to appointed counsel; discretionary appointment factors apply.	Motion to appoint counsel denied; plaintiff able to present his case pro se.

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard in Eighth Amendment cases)
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) (cruel and unusual punishment, basic needs; totality of conditions)
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) (context for Eighth Amendment conditions claim; conduits of liability)
Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (3d Cir. 1988) (personal involvement requirement in §1983 actions)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; not mere conclusions)
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (§1983 requires state action and deprivation of rights)
Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119 (1977) (prison grievance procedures not a constitutional right)