Jones v. Wenerowicz
| Decision Date | 19 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:18-CV-02353 |
| Parties | MARCELLUS A. JONES, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
MARCELLUS A. JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:18-CV-02353
United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
August 19, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Matthew W. Brann Chief United States District Judge
Pro se Plaintiff Marcellus A. Jones (“Plaintiff”), who is presently incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution-Camp Hill (“SCI-Camp Hill”) and was incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution-Frackville (“SCI-Frackville”) and the State Correctional Institution-Greene (“SCI-Greene”) during the period of time relevant to this case, brought this case alleging civil rights violations by Defendants employed at SCI-Frackville. Defendants have moved for summary judgment. I will grant the motion in part and deny it in part.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this case through the filing of a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 7, 2018.[1] Plaintiff additionally moved for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.[2] United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson granted the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on January 17, 2019.[3]On May 15, 2019, I dismissed the claims against several defendants without prejudice and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.[4] Plaintiff timely amended his complaint on August 22, 2019.[5] According to the allegations in the amended complaint, Plaintiff was enrolled in SCI-Frackville's Behavioral Management Program in March 2018 when he was temporarily transferred to SCI-Greene so that he could attend a court hearing in a habeas corpus case he had previously filed.[6] Upon Plaintiff's return to SCI-Frackville, Defendants White, Sorber, Albert, O'Kane, and Boyce conducted an administrative hearing to determine whether Plaintiff was eligible to graduate from the Behavioral Management Program.[7] Defendants purportedly informed Plaintiff that due to his temporary absence from the program while he was at SCI-Greene, he would not be allowed to graduate from the Behavioral Management Program, despite the fact that he met all the other eligibility criteria for graduation.[8] Plaintiff, perceiving this decision as a punishment for having attended court in the habeas corpus proceeding, decided not to attend the next hearing in the proceeding, which
resulted in the habeas corpus petition being denied.[9] Plaintiff alleges that the decision to deny him graduation from the Behavioral Management Program arose from a conspiracy by the Defendants to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights as retaliation for him having filed the habeas corpus petition.[10]
The amended complaint further alleges that on March 17, 2018, prison staff confiscated a newspaper belonging to Plaintiff.[11] Prison staff subsequently notified him that the newspaper would be returned.[12] Plaintiff then filed several complaints and grievances to have the newspaper returned, but it never was.[13] Plaintiff purportedly asked Defendant Brittain whether the newspaper would be returned, and Brittain allegedly stated, “if you keep crying[,] complaining[,] bitching[,] and moaning about being abused we'll never give anything.”[14] Plaintiff also allegedly asked Defendants Newberry, Dowd, and Albert about the missing newspaper, but none of the Defendants returned the newspaper.[15] Plaintiff alleges that the confiscation and subsequent failure to return the newspaper violated his rights under the First Amendment, violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and constituted conversion under Pennsylvania law.[16]
The amended complaint alleges that on April 4, 2018, Plaintiff spoke with Defendants Wenerowicz, Hammond, Brittain, White and Sorber outside of his cell.[17] The Defendants, who all purportedly held supervisory roles with SCI-Frackville or the Department of Corrections, were at Plaintiff's cell while they were touring the facility.[18] Plaintiff allegedly informed the defendants that prison staff were abusing him and retaliating against him.[19] As a result of Plaintiff informing these defendants of the abuse and retaliation that he was purportedly suffering, prison staff allegedly targeted Plaintiff for “retaliatory attacks” on April 20, 2018, June 9, 2018, June 16, 2018, June 25, 2018, July 1, 2018, July 4, 2018, July 6, 2018, July 11, 2018, October 4, 2018, and October 9, 2018.[20] Plaintiff alleges that this retaliation violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.[21]
Defendants McCord, Beach, and other unnamed individuals allegedly entered Plaintiff's cell on March 27, 2018 and stole some of Plaintiff's personal property.[22] Plaintiff's personal property was then allegedly given to white inmates “as payment.”[23] This action purportedly followed from a pattern of action by prison staff of stealing personal property from non-white inmates and giving the
property to white inmates “as payment.”[24] Plaintiff purportedly informed prison staff that his personal property had been taken, which allegedly resulted in Defendant McCord confiscating legal mail that Plaintiff was trying to send to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit as part of then-extant litigation.[25] Defendant McCord allegedly destroyed or stole the confiscated legal materials with the approval of Defendants Wenerowicz, Hammond, Brittain, White, Sorber, and Albert.[26] The fact that the legal documents were never sent to the Third Circuit led to the Third Circuit ruling against Plaintiff.[27] Plaintiff alleges that if the Third Circuit had received the documents, the court would have instead ruled in his favor.[28]
The amended complaint alleges that on April 20, 2018, an inmate hired by Defendants Hoffner and Thompson went to Plaintiff's cell and threatened Plaintiff with violence.[29] The inmate purportedly banged and kicked on the outside of Plaintiff's cell, slammed his meal tray against the cell, and shouted that he would “kill [Plaintiff] for being such a fucking snitch” and that Defendants would “fuck [Plaintiff] up for ratting [them] out.”[30] Prison staff allegedly did nothing to stop
the inmate.[31] The amended complaint alleges that video footage from April 20, 2018 shows Defendant Hoffner delivering payment to the hired inmate in the form of tobacco and other items.[32] The amended complaint alleges that the same hired inmate and Defendant Boyce fabricated a disciplinary report against Plaintiff on July 1, 2018.[33] Further, on July 2, 2018 the hired inmate and Defendant Hoffner purportedly spoke to each other outside of Plaintiff's cell, pointed at the cell, and said “we need to get that n[---] snitch” and “don't worry he'll pay dearly for being such a cry baby bitch before the weeks out.”[34]
Defendants allegedly allowed the same inmate to assault Plaintiff on July 4, 2018 by spraying Plaintiff in the face with disinfectant.[35] Defendants then purportedly fabricated a misconduct report against Plaintiff for assault arising from the incident.[36] Defendants Moser, Dowd, and Hoffner allegedly denied Plaintiff a shower after he provided his account of the incident during an interview with prison staff.[37] The amended complaint alleges that prison surveillance footage from August 19, 2018 shows Defendant Hoffner and the inmate who was allegedly hired by Defendants engaged in “sex acts” in a secluded, isolated area of the
prison.[38] The amended complaint also alleges that video evidence from September 30, 2018 shows Hoffner stating, “now it's time to get him,” in reference to Plaintiff and that mere hours later Plaintiff was targeted for a cell inspection by Hoffner.[39]The amended complaint alleges that on October 1, 2018, Defendant Boyce conferred with the inmate allegedly hired by Defendants in order to plot against Plaintiff, after which Boyce “zeroed in” on Plaintiff's cell, threatened Plaintiff, and issued a false misconduct charge against Plaintiff.[40] The next day, October 2, 2018, Defendants Hoffner and Palerino allegedly entered Plaintiff's cell and kicked and punched him while shouting “yeah pussy now you have a reason to snitch” and “this ass whooping is a reason for you to file another lawsuit.”[41] Defendant Eidem allegedly told Plaintiff shortly after the assault that the attacks by prison staff would get worse if Plaintiff continued to file complaints to prison administrators.[42]Plaintiff was also allegedly denied medical care following the assault and was told by Defendants Eidem and Kathy that he would not be given medical care unless he stopped filing complaints.[43]
The amended complaint raises ten claims for relief. First, the amended complaint alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiff's right to equal protection.[44]
Second, the amended complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's civil rights under the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.[45] Third, the amended complaint alleges that Defendants failed to intervene in the violation of Plaintiff's civil rights.[46] Fourth, the amended complaint alleges that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the First Amendment.[47] Fifth, the amended complaint alleges that Defendants committed cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.[48]Sixth, the amended complaint alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiff's right of access to the courts under the First Amendment.[49] Seventh, the amended complaint alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiff's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.[50] Eighth, the amended complaint alleges that Defendants committed defamation under Pennsylvania law.[51] Ninth, the amended complaint alleges that Defendants committed “intentional and conversion torts” under Pennsylvania law.[52] Finally, the amended complaint alleges that Defendants committed “peculiar risk and superior knowledge torts” under Pennsylvania law.[53]...
To continue reading
Request your trial