Kreider v. Wetzel

• Decision Date: 16 June 2016
• Docket Number: Civil No. 3:15-CV-1112
• Parties: ALEC DEVON KREIDER, Plaintiff v. JOHN WETZEL, et al., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

ALEC DEVON KREIDER, Plaintiff v. JOHN WETZEL, et al., Defendants

Civil No. 3:15-CV-1112

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

June 16, 2016

(Judge Caputo)

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an action brought by Alec Devon Kreider, an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, who alleges that while he was confined at the State Correctional Institution at Coal Township, prison officials unlawfully denied him access to several books on the grounds that they violated prison policies because they contained nude images or otherwise were determined to present a security risk to the institution. Kreider contends that the denial violated a host of constitutional safeguards, including his First Amendment right to free speech, due process and equal protection, among others. The defendants include the Secretary of the DOC, John Wetzel, as well as Therese Jellen, the mailroom supervisor at SCI-Coal Township, Vincent Mooney, the prison's Superintendent, and Diana Woodside, the Policy Director for the Department of Corrections. The defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and for the reasons that follow it will be recommended that the motion be granted in part and denied in part.

II. BACKGROUND

In 2013, the plaintiff was incarcerated at SCI-Coal Township. The plaintiff's mother sent him a book called "Art Models 3," which arrived on or about June 27, 2013. The book was evidently flagged by Therese Jellen, the mailroom supervisor and referred to the Incoming Publications Review Committee ("IPRC"), which denied the plaintiff permission to possess the book, observing that the book contained nudity and therefore ran afoul of DOC Policy DC-ADM 803. (Doc. 26, p. 4.) The plaintiff appealed the IPRC's decision, asserting that the book was permissible under DC-ADM 803 because it exhibited nudity for "artistic purposes". Kreider appealed the denial to Defendant Vincent Mooney, who upheld the denial on July 2, 2013. Plaintiff appealed this decision as well, which was upheld in a decision that defendant Diana Woodside, the DOC's Policy Director, issued on July 25, 2013. In lieu of having the book destroyed the plaintiff was permitted to have it mailed to a friend.

The plaintiff alleges that he was similarly denied possession of four other books while housed at SCI-Coal Township, including "MW," "Ode to Kirohito Part 1," "Ode to Kirohito Part 2," and "And Their Memory Was a Bitter Tree."According to the IPRC, these books were denied either because they violated the DOC's rules regarding depiction of nudity in books, or because they represented a security risk. Notably, there is no substantial information in the limited record currently before us to confirm what is actually depicted in these texts.

Having been denied possession of these materials, and frustrated by what his inability to prevail in any of his appeals of the IPRC's decisions, the plaintiff commenced this lawsuit on June 8, 2015. (Doc. 1.) The undersigned screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and issued a report and recommendation on June 10, 2015. (Dc. 9.) In that report, it was recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to all claims asserted against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and SCI-Coal Township itself, on the grounds that these defendants were immune under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. The District Court adopted the report and recommendation on July 15, 2015.

The plaintiff was granted leave to submit an amended complaint, which he filed on November 13, 2015. In the amended complaint, the plaintiff avers that the decision to deny him possession of the five publications violated his First Amendment right to free speech; constituted a denial of a property right in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; amounted to a violation of his right to equal protection and due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment; and further violated the Religious Land Use andInstitutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq. "RLUIPA"). The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for the claimed violations.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on February 4, 2016. The motion has now been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint, in whole or in part, if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The moving party bears the burden of showing that no claim has been stated, Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir.2005), and dismissal is appropriate only if, accepting all of the facts alleged in the complaint as true, the plaintiff has failed to plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (abrogating "no set of facts" language found in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) ). The facts alleged must be sufficient to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555. This requirement "calls for enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence" of necessary elements of the plaintiff's cause of action. Id. at 556. Furthermore, in order to satisfy federal pleading requirements, the plaintiff must "provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief," which "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action willnot do." Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir.2008) (brackets and quotations marks omitted) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555).

In considering a motion to dismiss, the court generally relies on the complaint, attached exhibits, and matters of public record. Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir.2007). The court may also consider "undisputedly authentic document[s] that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the [attached] documents." Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir.1993). Moreover, "documents whose contents are alleged in the complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered." Pryor v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir.2002); see also U.S. Express Lines, Ltd. v. Higgins, 281 F.3d 383, 388 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that "[a]lthough a district court may not consider matters extraneous to the pleadings, a document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint may be considered without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment."). However, the court may not rely on other parts of the record in determining a motion to dismiss. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir.1994).

IV. DISCUSSION

The defendants urge the court to dismiss the amended complaint at the outset of this litigation for a variety of reason, which will be addressed separately below. Notably, aside from their argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiff's claims, the defendants largely ignore what we perceive to be the cornerstone of the plaintiff's amended complaint: namely, Kreider's contention that the defendants' individual and collective decision to prohibit him from possessing or viewing five books violates his right to Free Speech under the First Amendment. For the reasons discussed below, although we agree that a number of the plaintiff's claims fail on the face of the complaint alone, the plaintiff's First Amendment and equal protection claims should not be disposed without the parties being afforded the opportunity to engage in discovery so that the defendants' stated justifications for denying the plaintiff access to the books can be more fully considered in the context of the developing law in this field, and on the basis of a more fully developed factual record.

A. Lack of Personal Involvement

The defendants first argue that the amended complaint should be dismissed as to all defendants because none of them is alleged to have been personally involved in any of the violations alleged. With the exception of Secretary Wetzel,who has been named only because of his supervisory role within the DOC, we disagree.

The plaintiff brings his claims for alleged constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a provides a cause of action to redress violations of federal law; it is not a source of substantive rights, but is merely a procedural vehicle used to vindicate those rights otherwise protected by federal law. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 284-85 (2002); Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, 1204 (3d Cir. 1996). To establish a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate a deprivation of a "right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States . . . by a person acting under color of state law." Kneipp, 95 F.3d at 1204 (quoting Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141 (3d Cir. 1995)).

In order to state a claim against a state actor under § 1983, a plaintiff cannot base his claim on a theory of respondeat superior; instead, he must show that each named defendant was personally involved in the events or circumstances that give rise to the claim. Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988) ("A defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs . . . ."); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77 (2009) ("Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution."); Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130(3d Cir. 2010). Personal involvement may be...