Brandon v. Burkhart

• Decision Date: 12 August 2021
• Docket Number: 1:16-cv-00177 (Erie)
• Parties: CURTIS BRANDON, Plaintiff v. RAYMOND BURKHART LIEUTENANT, DANIEL PACK GUARD, JOHN E. WETZEL, MICHAEL D. OVERMYER, DEREK F. OBERLANDER, JEFFREY A. HORTON, ERIN WALLACE-IRELAND, PAUL A. ENNIS, DONALD E. CONRAD, GREGORY CHILES, MATHEW J. BLICHA, MICHELLE CROWTHER, LAURA BLAKE, S. ELLENBERGER, JOSEPH H. DUPONT, WILLIAM D. COLE, BRENDA HAUPT, GINA MARTINI, S. W. STODDARD, E. JACKSON, SCHLEICHER, JACOB R. BEACH, JANNETTE M. TOWNER, SHARON PRICE, SARAH SIEGEL, A. KOT, ROBIN M. LEWIS, and KERI MOORE, Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

CURTIS BRANDON, Plaintiff
v.
RAYMOND BURKHART LIEUTENANT, DANIEL PACK GUARD, JOHN E. WETZEL, MICHAEL D. OVERMYER, DEREK F. OBERLANDER, JEFFREY A. HORTON, ERIN WALLACE-IRELAND, PAUL A. ENNIS, DONALD E. CONRAD, GREGORY CHILES, MATHEW J. BLICHA, MICHELLE CROWTHER, LAURA BLAKE, S. ELLENBERGER, JOSEPH H. DUPONT, WILLIAM D. COLE, BRENDA HAUPT, GINA MARTINI, S. W. STODDARD, E. JACKSON, SCHLEICHER, JACOB R. BEACH, JANNETTE M. TOWNER, SHARON PRICE, SARAH SIEGEL, A. KOT, ROBIN M. LEWIS, and KERI MOORE, Defendants

No. 1:16-cv-00177 (Erie)

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

August 12, 2021

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ECF NO. 137

Richard A. Lanzillo, United States Magistrate Judge

I. Recommendation

It is respectfully recommended that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, docketed at ECF No. 137, be GRANTED for the reasons outlined in the following Report.

II. Report

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Curtis Brandon (Brandon) commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to recover damages and other relief based on alleged violations of his constitutional rights. The procedural history of this case is lengthy, owing in large part to Brandon's repeated requests for extensions of time, objections and appeals of routine scheduling orders, and the stay of these proceedings during the initial phase of the global coronavirus pandemic. The following is summary.

Brandon filed his pro se Complaint initiating this action in August of 2016. See ECF No. 5. He named only Raymond Burkhart and Daniel Pack as Defendants in his original Complaint. Id. But subsequent Amended Complaints added other Defendants, with Brandon ultimately bringing claims against thirty individuals in his Second Amended Complaint. See, e.g., ECF No. 20 (Amended Complaint), ECF No. 44 (Second Amended Complaint). Brandon's first Amended Complaint named the following as defendants:

● Laura Blake
● Matthew J. Blicha,	● Jeffrey A. Horton,
● Raymond Burkhart,	● Derek F. Oberlander,
● Gregory Chiles,	● Michael D. Overmyer,
● Donald E. Conrad,	● Daniel Pack,
● Michelle Crowther,	● Jennifer “Jen” Reed,
● Joseph H. Dupont,	● Dorina Varner,
● S. Ellenberger,	● Erin Wallace-Ireland, and
● Paul A. Ennis,	● John E. Wetzel.

ECF No. 20. Brandon again named the above Defendants and added the following new individuals to his Second Amended Complaint:

● William D. Cole,	● Jannette M. Towner,
● Brenda Haupt,	● Sharon Price,
● Gina Martini,	● Sarah Siegel,
● S. W. Stoddard,	● Kot,
● E. Jackson,	● Robin M. Lewis, and
● Schleicher,	● Keri Moore.
● Jacob R. Beach,

ECF No. 44. All Defendants named in the Amended Complaint moved to dismiss the claims against them pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6). See ECF No. 49. Brandon was given numerous opportunities to file his opposition to the motion, finally doing so two hundred and fifty-one days after Defendants filed the motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 51, ECF No. 55, ECF No. 64, ECF No. 68, ECF No. 72, ECF No. 74, ECF No. 75.

The Court granted the motion to dismiss, in part. Defendants Wetzel, Overmyer, Blicha, Ennis, Crowther, Oberlander, Wallace-Ireland, Conrad, Dupont, Ellenberger, Reed and Varner were dismissed because Brandon failed to allege facts sufficient to support their personal involvement in any actionable conduct. See ECF No. 79; ECF No. 86. The defamation claim against Defendant Horton was also dismissed. Id. Brandon's retaliation claim against Burkhart and Chiles based on the confiscation of six boxes of legal materials was dismissed as was the retaliation claim against Defendant Varner based on her denial of Brandon's grievances. Id. Brandon's retaliation claim against Defendant Blake based on the confiscation of a legal document from the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project was also dismissed. Id. Finally, the Court dismissed the retaliation claim against Defendant Pack based on the confiscation of Brandon's cable television converter box. Id. However, the Court declined to dismiss several other claims. Brandon's retaliation claims against Defendants Burkhart, Blake, Stoddard, and Chiles were not dismissed. ECF No. 79, pp. 11-14. The access to courts claim brought against Defendant Burkhart also survived dismissal as did his due process claims against Defendants Schleicher, Price, and Beach. Id., pp. 14-16. The Defendants who Brandon added to the Second Amended Complaint belatedly filed an Answer. ECF No. 83. This case next entered into a period of discovery, which Brandon again repeatedly sought to delay and extend. See, e.g., ECF No. 90, ECF No. 92, ECF No. 101, ECF No. 110, ECF No. 112. While discovery was pending, the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2), dismissed claims against Defendants Cole, Kot, Moore, Haupt, Martini, Jackson, and Towner as frivolous. ECF No. 173.

The remaining Defendants then moved for summary judgment. See ECF No. 137. Instead of responding to the motion for summary judgment, Brandon moved to stay the case due to law library restrictions imposed at SCI-Forest as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. ECF No. 147. The Court granted Brandon's motion. ECF No. 149. This matter remained stayed for one hundred and twelve days, until August 7, 2020. See ECF No. 160. The Defendants' Motion for Summary judgment was reactivated by the Court and Brandon was given until October 6, 2020, to file his Response in Opposition. ECF No. 161. Brandon objected to the lifting of the stay and to the ordering of a Response, appealing the matter to the Honorable Susan Paradise Baxter, United States District Judge. See ECF No. 162, ECF No. 165, ECF No. 170. His appeal was denied. See ECF No. 169, ECF No. 175. Brandon again requested a sixty-day extension of time to file his Response in Opposition. ECF No. 172. The Court denied that motion, but given that the deadline for filing his Response had now passed, afforded Brandon until October 19, 2020, to file his Response. Brandon filed a Response in Opposition on October 26, 2020.

B. The Motion for Summary Judgment

The remaining Defendants in this action, Burkhart, Blake, Stoddard, Chiles, Schleicher, Price, and Beach (collectively, “Defendants”), have moved for summary judgment.^[1] ECF No. 137. The following claims remain in this action:

1. A conspiracy claim against Defendant Siegel. ECF No. 44 ¶ 61

2. A claim of retaliation against Defendant Burkhart based on Burkhart's purported destruction of Brandon's legal property. ECF No, 44, ¶ 16;

3. A retaliation claim against Defendant Blake stemming from Blake's alleged issuance of a false misconduct charge after Brandon submitted a grievance about the confiscation of his legal property. Id. ¶ 23;

4. An access to courts claim against Defendant Burkhart based on Burkhart's alleged confiscation and destruction of Brandon's legal property. See ECF No. 79, pp. 14-15;

5. A retaliation claim brought against Defendants Stoddard and Chiles. ECF No. 44, ¶ 34;

6. A due process claim against Defendant Schleicher concerning the confiscation of Brandon's television. Id. ¶ 41; and

7. A due process claim against Defendants Price and Beach regarding the alleged destruction of Brandon's 1099 dividend forms. Id., ¶ 31.

Before turning to an analysis of these claims, it is important to summarize the factual background to this dispute and then discuss the applicable legal standards which guide the Court's decision.

III. Factual Background

Brandon admits to possessing twenty-six years-worth of legal materials stemming from “state and federal litigation.” Id., ¶ 17. He claims that prison officials unlawfully confiscated and destroyed these materials but what exactly was confiscated and destroyed remains somewhat unclear.^[2] Id., ¶ 12. The origins of this dispute can be traced back to July of 2014, when Defendant Pack, a corrections officer at SCI-Forest, confiscated Brandon's cable television converter box and cable cord. Id., ¶ 6. In September of 2014, Brandon states that Defendant Burkhart confiscated “extra legal boxes of my core legal materials.” Id. ¶ 11. According to Brandon, this was done in retaliation “to prevent me from filing my civil actions in the courts.” Id.

Specifically, Brandon claims this confiscation prevented him from filing a lawsuit about actions at SCI-Mahoney. Id. He also claims to have been unable to file a lawsuit against two investment companies as well as an action in state court pertaining to the estate of his late mother. Id. Finally, Brandon's inability to access these materials prevented him from prosecuting an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in another case and from filing an appeal from the denial of a petition for habeas corpus. Id.

In February of 2016, Brandon allegedly showed Defendant Burkhart a letter from an attorney which indicated that the lawyer 'would prepare a lawsuit relative to my confiscated legal materials and CTCV/wCC held in Burkhart's property room.” Id. Brandon's verified Second Amended Complaint states that

On February 9, 2016, subsequent to me showing SCIF's [SCI-Forest's] Burkhart my lawyer's letter stating he would prepare a lawsuit relative to my confiscated legal materials and CTVCB/wCC held in Burkhart's Property Room, Burkhart stated by state procedure he can destroy it after eight months, as Burkhart in retaliation unlawfully destroyed all nine (9) of my extra legal boxes of my core legal materials and CTVCB/wCC on February 9, 2016 comitting spoliation of evidence, that entitles me to immediate release

...