Gray v. Wakefield, CIVIL NO. 3:CV-09-0979
| Decision Date | 02 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 3:CV-09-0979 |
| Parties | ANTHONY LEE GRAY, Plaintiff v. DAVID J. WAKEFIELD, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Judge Nealon)
On May 22, 2009, Plaintiff, Anthony Lee Gray, an inmate currently confined in the Rockview State Correctional Institution, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, filed the above captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1981, §1983, §1985, §1986 and for intentional torts allegedly committed against him in violation of the common law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The named Defendants are the following current and former employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC"), and the State Correctional Institution, Huntingdon, ("SCI-Huntingdon" Pennsylvania, Plaintiff's former place of confinement: David Wakefield, retired DOC Deputy Secretary; Raymond M. Lawler, retired SCI-Huntingdon Deputy Superintendent; Michael Harlow, former SCI-Huntingdon Deputy Superintendent for Facilities Management; Major S.R. Glunt, former SCI-Huntingdon Major of the Guards; Thomas Holtz, former SCI-Huntingdon Correctional Officer; Jeffrey Ewing, retired SCI-Huntingdon Correctional Officer; Michael Harmon, SCI-Huntingdon Correctional Officer; Thomas Johnston, SCI-Huntingdon Security Office Lieutenant; Daniel Baird, SCI-Huntingdon Correctional Officer; Scott Marabella, SCI-Huntingdon Sergeant; Daryl W. Strittmatter, SCI-Huntingdon Correctional Officer; David B. Whitsel, SCI-Huntingdon Correctional Officer; Benjamin Butler, SCI-Huntingdon Correctional Officer; Mark Houp, SCI-Huntingdon Correctional Officer; Robert R. Williamson, SCI-Huntingdon Correctional Officer; David McMahon, SCI-Huntingdon Correctional Officer; Jason D. Shroyer, SCI-Huntingdon Correctional Officer; Timothy L. Prough, SCI-Huntingdon Correctional Officer; John T. Barr, SCI-Huntingdon Correctional Officer; Paula Price, SCI-Huntingdon Registered Nurse; Sheila Fink, SCI-Huntingdon Licensed Practical Nurse; Deanna Strittmatter, SCI-Huntingdon Registered Nurse; Ann Hoffmaster, SCI-Huntingdon Licenced Practical Nurse; and Mary Lou Showalter, SCI-Huntingdon Corrections Health Care Administrator.
Previously by Memorandum and Order dated September 16, 2011, Defendants' motions for summary judgment, alleging Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies, were denied. See (Doc. 90). Also, by Memorandum and Order dated September 28, 2012, Defendant Brown's motion for summary judgment was granted and Defendant Brown was terminated from the action. See (Docs. 103, 104).
Presently pending before the Court is the remaining Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 120). The motion has been fully brief and is ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant, in part, Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) requires the court to render summary judgment ". . . forthwith if 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 judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "[T]his standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the partieswill not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original).
A disputed fact is "material" if proof of its existence or nonexistence would affect the outcome of the case under applicable substantive law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Gray v. York Newspapers. Inc., 957 F.2d 1070, 1078 (3d Cir. 1992). An issue of material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257; Brenner v. Local 514. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 927 F.2d 1283, 1287-88 (3d Cir. 1991).
When determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, the court must view the facts and all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Moore v. Tartler, 986 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1993); Clement v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, 963 F.2d 599, 600 (3d Cir. 1992); White v. Westinehouse Electric Company, 862 F.2d 56, 59 (3d Cir. 1988). In order to avoid summary judgment, however, the nonmoving party may not rest on the unsubstantiated allegations of his or her pleadings. When the party seeking summary judgment satisfies its burden under Rule 56(c) of identifying evidence which demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party is required by Rule 56(e) to go beyond the pleadings with affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories or the like in order to demonstrate specific material facts which give rise to a genuine issue. Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). The party opposing the motion "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). When Rule 56(e) shifts the burden of production to thenonmoving party, that party must produce evidence to show the existence of every element essential to its case which it bears the burden of proving at trial, for "a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. See Harter v. G.A.F. Corp., 967 F.2d 846, 851 (3d Cir. 1992).
From the pleadings, declarations, and exhibits submitted therewith, the following facts can be ascertained as undisputed.
On June 6, 2007, Plaintiff was housed at SCI-Huntingdon, in building G, Section D, cell number 1001. Shortly before 9:30 am, on June 6, 2007, Defendants Strittmatter and Williamson went to Plaintiff's cell to escort him from his cell to a Program Review Committee ("PRC") Hearing in the Restricted Housing Unit ("RHU") Hearing Unit. Before escorting Plaintiff from his cell, Defendants Strittmatter and Williamson strip searched1 Plaintiff. Defendant Strittmatter then inspected Plaintiff's prison jump suit, underwear, socks, and shoes for contraband. Defendant Strittmatter passed the clothing back to Plaintiff who got dressed. Defendants Strittmatter and Williamson handcuffed Plaintiff behind his back and attached a tether to the handcuffs. Once the cell door was opened, Defendants Strittmatter and Williamson escorted Plaintiff to the hearing room. At all times during this escort, Defendant Strittmattermaintained control of the tether attached to Plaintiff's handcuffs. .
On June 6, 2007, the PRC consisted of Defendants Harlow, Corrections Classification Program Manager Brian Corbin, and Unit Manager Scott Walters. Also present in the hearing room were Activities Manager Monroe Kuhns, Defendant Johnston, and Defendant Baird.
At approximately 9:50 am, on June 6, 2007, Defendants Strittmatter and Williamson brought Plaintiff into the hearing room. (Doc. 122, Ex. 2, Declaration of Michael W. Harlow, former SCI-Huntingdon Deputy Superintendent for Facilities Management at 11). Plaintiff remained handcuffed with his hands behind his back. Id. Defendant Strittmatter maintained his hold on the tether attached to Plaintiff's handcuffs, while CO. Williamson was beside Plaintiff. Id.
Upon entering the hearing room, Plaintiff lunged toward the table where Defendant Harlow and the other PRC members were sitting. Id. at ¶ 12. See also (Doc. 122, Ex. 1, Declaration of Daryl Strittmatter, SCI-Huntingdon Corrections Officer at ¶ 5); (Doc. 122, Ex. 2-A, Extraordinary Occurrence Report at 2). He spewed out a brown mixture, strongly smelling of feces, directly into Defendant Harlow's face. Id. The brown substance struck Defendant Harlow in the face and chest. Plaintiff then turned towards Unit Manager Walters and Activities Manager Kuhns and spewed the brown substance on them. Id. Mr. Waters was hit in the face and chest, Mr. Kuhns was hit in the chest area. Id.2
Defendant Strittmatter pulled on the tether and grabbed for Plaintiff's handcuffs to pull him away from the PRC members. (Doc. 122, Ex. 1, Strittmatter declaration at ¶ 6; Ex. 2, Harlow declaration at ¶ 13; Ex. 2-A, Extraordinary Occurrence Report; and Ex. 3, Declaration of Timothy Johnston, SCI-Huntingdon Security Office Lieutenant at ¶ 3). Plaintiff resisted. Id. Defendant Williamson struck Plaintiff in the neck and shoulder area with his forearm. Id. Together, Defendants Strittmatter and Williamson pulled Plaintiff face down onto the floor of the hearing room and held him there as Plaintiff struggled against their hold. Id.
Sgt. D.E. Hoover and Defendant Houp then joined Defendants Strittmatter and Williamson in gaining control of Plaintiff. (Doc. 122, Ex. 1, Strittmatter declaration at ¶ 7; Ex. 2, Harlow Declaration at ¶ 13; Ex. 2-A, Extraordinary Occurrence Report; and Ex. 3, Johnston declaration at ¶ 2). Sgt. Hoover put a spit shield over Plaintiff's head. Id. Once Plaintiff was under the officer's control, they pulled him to his feet. Id. Together the officers escorted Plaintiff from the hearing room. Id.
Sgt. Hoover and Defendants Strittmatter, Williamson, and Houp kept Plaintiff bent forward from the waist as they escorted him back to his cell. (Doc. 122, Ex. 1, Strittmatter declaration at ¶ 9; Ex. 2-A, Extraordinary Occurrence Report; and Ex. 3, Johnston declaration at ¶ 3). Defendants Williamson and Houp had hold of each of Plaintiff's arms. Id. Defendant Strittmatter held the tether in both hands, shortening it to maintain control as Plaintiff struggled against the officers' holds. Id. The officers took Plaintiff down the steps to the first level,through a portion of the RHU until they reached Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial