Bakhtiari v. Madrigal
| Decision Date | 13 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:18-CV-38,3:18-CV-38 |
| Parties | ALIREZA BAKHTIARI PLAINTIFF, v. JASON MADRIGAL, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(JUDGE CAPUTO)
(MAGISTRATE JUDGE CARLSON)
Presently before me is Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 84) to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed byDefendants John Frawley, Linda Forshay, Josiah Martin, and Elissa Wenzel ("PCCF Defendants"). (Doc. 31). For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant the Motion in part and deny the Motion in part will be adopted in part and rejected in part.
The relevant background on summary judgment is as follows. On August 7, 2012, Alireza Bakhtiari ("Bakhtiari" or "Plaintiff") pleaded guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) and was sentenced to fifty-one (51) months in prison, supervised release, and a one-hundred dollar ($100) fine. (Doc. 32, ¶ 1; Doc. 56, "Pl.'s SMF," ¶ 1). Removal proceedings were initiated against Bakhtiari by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and Bakhtiari was detained at Pike County Correctional Facility ("PCCF") in early 2017 at the request of ICE following completion of his criminal sentence. (See Defs.' SMF ¶ 4; Pl.'s SMF ¶ 4). Upon his arrival at PCCF, Bakhtiari was "classified and placed into level 3 [Maximum-security] general population status[.]" (Doc. 32-1 at 67).
On February 1, 2017, after attempting to collect information from his fellow inmates in the medical department to prepare a class action lawsuit, Bakhtiari was confronted by Defendants Martin and Frawley.1 (Doc. 53, Ex. 2 at 4). Bakhtiari was sanctioned to forty-eight (48) days in the Restricted Housing Unit ("RHU") based on this event. (Doc. 32-1 at 48). That same day, Bakhtiari wrote to the PCCF Warden about his concern that he was exposed to Hepatitis C through another inmate, Lee Crawford, who, while serving as the unit orderly, drooled on Bakhtiari's food. (Doc. 53, Ex. 3 at 7). The next day, Bakhtiari again began collecting information from inmates who were interested in pursuing a civil rights class action case against PCCF officials and was sanctioned to twenty (20) days in the RHU in connection with this behavior. (Doc. 53, Ex. 13 at 44). By mid-March of 2017, Bakhtiari filed a grievance concerning his continued isolation, arguing his delayed return to the general prison population was retaliatory after he told a number of PCCF officials he planned to bring a class action against them because their "decisions, conducts, inmate abuse and classifications policies" were unconstitutional. . On March 17, 2017, Assistant Warden Robert E. McLaughlin denied Bakhtiari's grievance and subsequent appeal, citing his "institutional behavioral history" as a factor influencing the determination. (Ex. 22 at 73).
Upon Bakhtiari's return to the general prison population in March of 2017, Bakhtiari reported his concern about Hepatitis C exposure through Crawford to Defendants Martin and Frawley. (Doc. 53, Ex. 24 at 77). In one grievance addressing this incident, Bakhtiari claims Defendants Martin and Frawley "thr[ew] racial slurs, laughed, ignored & denied" his Hepatitis C concerns. (Id.). In a separate grievance about the response to his Hepatitis C concerns, Bakhtiari alleged Defendants Martinand Frawley "became very hostile and told [him] not to pursue the matter." (Doc. 53, Ex. 26 at 84). On April 4, 2017, the shift commander responded to Bakhtiari's grievances in the following manner: (Ex. 24 at 78). Around this time, Crawford was removed from his position as unit orderly. (Doc. 53, Ex. 28 at 89). Bakhtiari never contracted Hepatitis C in his time at PCCF. (Defs.' SMF ¶ 10; Pl.'s SMF ¶ 10).
On May 11, 2017, Bakhtiari requested to be separated from inmates Gerome G. Johnson and "J. Palmer[,]" claiming they threatened him with physical harm. (Defs.' SMF ¶ 19; Pl.'s SMF ¶ 19; Doc. 53, Ex. 30 at 95; Doc. 32-1 at 50). This request was granted and both individuals were placed on Bakhtiari's separatee list. (Doc. 5 at 22). One month later, on June 12, 2017, Bakhtiari was cleared for administrative segregation housing after he notified Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") that "he would kill himself if moved from the facility." ). By June 21, 2017, Bakhtiari was "placed into protective custody for [his] safety" even though his claims regarding verbal threats were determined to be unfounded. (Doc. 53-1, Ex. 32 at 5).
Defendant Frawley approached Bakhtiari on August 8, 2017 about his attempted contact with a former PCCF officer, Michelle Dotey. (Doc. 53-1, Ex. 52 at 58). Bakhtiari told Defendant Frawley he was working on a pending lawsuit against him on behalf of Dotey, claiming Defendant Frawley previously victimized her both "racially and sexually." (Id.). According to Bakhtiari, Defendant Frawley became "irate and began shouting and menacing" and stated "[w]ait till your buddy Johnson comes back, you and him will have a nice reunion!" as he walked away. (Id. at 58-59). On September 5, 2017, Frawley informed Bakhtiari that he was being transferred to a cell with Johnson, despite Bakhtiari's pleas. (Id. at 59). Once Bakhtiari was in the cellwith the doors locked, Johnson "got up, ready to attack" and Bakhtiari successfully avoided any physical harm by agreeing to help Johnson and his friend with their lawsuit. (Doc. 53-1, Ex. 63 at 85).
At approximately 2:00 a.m. on September 19, 2017, Defendant Martin came into Bakhtiari's cell and took documents relating to the lawsuit concerning abuse claims by former female prison staff that Bakhtiari was working on. (Id. at 85; Doc. 5 at 21, 23). Bakhtiari immediately submitted a grievance about this incident. (Doc. 53-1, Ex. 59 at 76). Three hours later, around 5:00 a.m., Defendant Martin returned to Bakhtiari's cell, informing Bakhtiari he received a note suggesting Bakhtiari was suicidal. (Id.; Doc. 5 at 21, 23). Defendant Martin strip searched Bakhtiari and made "sexual comments" about his genitals before placing him on suicide watch.2 (Doc. 53-1, Ex. 61 at 80). Bakhtiari asked Defendant Martin for the suicide note, but Defendant Martin refused to produce it. (Id.; Ex. 59 at 76).
On January 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint against a number of ICE officials and the United States as well as Sgt. John Frawley, Sgt. Forshe, Sgt. Martin,3 and Elise Wenzel, Correctional Administrator ("PCCF Defendants") alleging a number of civil rights violations and tortious conduct under both Pennsylvania law and the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA").4 (See Doc. 1 generally).
On July 31, 2018 the PCCF Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims against them. (Doc. 31). On August 29, 2018, the Federal Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims against them. (Doc. 43). Magistrate Judge Carlson issued a Report and Recommendation on December 27, 2018, recommending that the Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted, which I adopted on April 9, 2018. (Doc. 83, Doc. 95, Doc. 96). Magistrate Judge Carlson issued the instant Report and Recommendation as to the PCCF Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on January 3, 2019, recommending the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. (See Doc. 84 at 48-49). Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on January 9, 2019 and the PCCF Defendants filed a response to the objections on February 21, 2019. (Doc. 86; Doc. 99). This matter has therefore been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition.
When objections to the magistrate judge's Report are filed, the court must conduct a de novo review of the contested portions of the Report. Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). However, this only applies to the extent that a party's objections are both timely and specific; if objections are merely "general in nature," the court "need not conduct a de novo determination." Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir. 1984). Indeed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed that "providing a complete de novo determination where only a general objection to the report is offered would undermine the efficiency the magistrate system was meant to contribute to the judicial process." Id. at 7. In conducting a de novo review, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the factual findings or legal conclusions of the magistratejudge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Owens v. Beard, 829 F. Supp. 736, 738 (M.D. Pa. 1993). Uncontested portions of the Report may be reviewed at a standard determined by the district court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985); Goney, 749 F.2d at 7. At the very least, the court should review uncontested portions for clear error or manifest injustice. See, e.g., Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375, 376-77 (M.D. Pa. 1998).
Summary judgment shall be granted "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). "Summary judgment is appropriate when 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" Wright v. Corning, 679 F.3d 101, 103 (3d Cir. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial