Love v. Whitman, 2:15-CV-01712-CRE
| Decision Date | 26 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2:15-CV-01712-CRE |
| Parties | ROBERT A. LOVE, Plaintiff, v. WHITMAN, PRISON COUNSELOR; DEBRA K. SAUERS, MICHAEL J. MAHLMEISTER, LT. MCFADDEN, JOHN E. WETZEL, SHAWNESE THOMPSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF BRIAN H. THOMPSON; Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Plaintiff Robert A. Love initiated this civil rights action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when he was held in a restrictive housing unit ("RHU") as an out-of-state parole violator in Pennsylvania State Correction Institution at Mercer ("SCI Mercer") for approximately 148 days against numerous prison officials (collectively "Corrections Defendants"). The court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Presently pending before the court is Corrections Defendants' renewed motion forsummary judgment. The court ruled on many issues on Corrections Defendants' prior summary judgment motion but ordered supplemental briefing on numerous issues, including qualified immunity, supervisory liability and compensatory damages. Presently for disposition are those outstanding issues not resolved during the first round of briefing.
For the reasons that follow, the Corrections Defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Corrections Defendants' motion is granted as it relates to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim, Plaintiff's supervisory liability claim against Secretary of the Department of Corrections John E. Wetzel ("Secretary Wetzel"), and Plaintiff's claim for compensatory damages and denied as it relates to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim.
Plaintiff was formerly a prisoner in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") confined at SCI Mercer. He brings the present action challenging the constitutionality of being placed in the RHU as an out-of-state parole or probation violator and the following claims against Corrections Defendants remain: (1) a Fourteenth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In July 2012, Plaintiff was arrested in the state of New York for several crimes. As a result of the arrest, Plaintiff was sentenced to six months of incarceration in New York and five years of probation. After serving four months of incarceration in New York, Plaintiff was released on parole on February 2013. Thereafter, Plaintiff transferred his parole from New York to Pennsylvania. In December 2013, while on parole for his New York state crimes, Plaintiff wascharged with several new criminal charges in Pennsylvania. Upon learning of these new charges, a warrant was issued to commit and detain Plaintiff for violating his parole/probation at the direction of the New York state authorities. After being arrested pursuant to the detainer warrant, Plaintiff was transported to SCI Mercer on December 30, 2013.
Administrative custody ("AC") "is a status of confinement" for inmates that the DOC uses "for non-disciplinary reasons that provides closer supervision, control, and protection than is provided in general population." DC-ADM 802 §3.A.1 (ECF No. 83-1 at 14). An inmate confined in AC status "shall not have the privileges available in general population security level housing." Id. For example, an inmate confined to AC status is not permitted radio, television or telephone calls except emergency or legal telephone calls, is permitted only limited personal property, may not have any contact visits, are confined to their cells for 24 hours a day, seven days a week with the exception of being permitted to exercise one hour per day, five days per week, and are given the opportunity to shower three times per week. DC-ADM 802 § 3.A.2-8. Inmates with AC status are housed in the RHU which is more commonly known as solitary confinement. DC-ADM 802 § 3.A.2. The RHU houses inmates both confined to AC status and inmates being housed in solitary confinement for disciplinary reasons.
The DOC has established and implemented a policies and procedures manual with respect to AC procedures, referred to as the DC-ADM. DC-ADM 802 effective November 19, 2013 (ECF No. 83-1, p.1-19). An inmate can be confined to AC status for myriad reasons. For example, inmates can be confined to AC status if their presence in general population constitutes a "threat to life, property, himself/herself, staff, other inmates, the public, or the secure or orderly running of the facility[,]" or if there are "no records and/or essential information" available to "determinethe inmate's custody level or housing needs." DC-ADM 802 § 1.A.1.a-k. Pertinent here, where an inmate is "being held temporarily for another authority and is not classified for the general population of the holding facility" the inmate may be confined to AC status. DC-ADM 802 § 1.A.1.h. However, if the inmate is a "Parole Violator," or a temporary transfer from another facility, the inmate is "eligible for release to general population[.]" Id.
DC-ADM 802 also establishes requirements for administrative review of an inmate's AC status. An inmate should receive an initial hearing by the PRC which explains the reasons for the inmate's placement in AC status. DC-ADM 802 § 2.A.2, 5. There is also an appeal process for the inmate to challenge the PRC's decision. Id. at § 2.C. An inmate's AC status must be reviewed by the PRC "every seven days for the first two months." Id. at § 2.D.1. Likewise, "[e]ach inmate in AC status shall be seen weekly by his/her counselor." Id. at § 2.D.2. The inmate's unit management team must review the inmate's AC status "after 30 days and every 30 days thereafter." Id. at § 2.D.3. These periodic reviews are also subject to the appeal process established in DC-ADM 802 § 2.C. In addition to periodic reviews by prison officials, when an inmate's confinement to AC exceeds thirty days, "[a] qualified psychologist or psychiatrist shall personally interview and conduct an assessment" of the inmate. Id. at § 2.D.7. If the inmate's AC status is prolonged, "a mental health assessment [shall] be completed at least every 90 calendar days." Id.
Plaintiff's Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") and opiate dependence
Prior to being incarcerated at SCI-Mercer, Plaintiff alleges that he was diagnosed with PTSD caused by his military service in the Iraq war. Additionally, prior to his incarceration at SCI-Mercer, he was enrolled at a methadone clinic to treat his opiate dependence. During his intake at SCI-Mercer, Plaintiff reported to prison officials that he was diagnosed with PTSD and anxiety and communicated to prison officials that his current medications were 70mg ofmethadone and 10mg of Valium and indicated that his past withdrawal symptoms were extreme. Additionally, Plaintiff told Defendant Lt. McFadden at some point during his incarceration that he suffered from PTSD.
Plaintiff's confinement at SCI-Mercer
Upon being initially received at SCI-Mercer on December 30, 2013, Plaintiff was physically observed and evaluated. The evaluation noted several minor injuries and recorded that Plaintiff was concerned about withdrawal because he was taking methadone. The receiving officer recommended that Plaintiff be placed in AC following his medical clearance.
Later that day, a report was issued by prison officials which indicated that Plaintiff had never been confined in DOC and there were no records relating to Plaintiff's background to determine his custody level or housing needs. The report indicated that Plaintiff would be housed in the infirmary isolation cell until medically cleared for RHU placement. The report also indicated that Plaintiff's RHU placement would be pending PRC review. According to Defendant Whitman, because Plaintiff was an out-of-state parole violator with a detainer from New York, it was up to the governing bodies in New York to determine to charge and sentence him on the new charges and place Plaintiff back on parole supervision or to extradite him back to New York to serve more time there.
On January 3, 2014, the Program Review Committee ("PRC") met with Plaintiff while he was in the infirmary and held a hearing on Plaintiff's inmate status. The PRC included Defendants Sauers and Mahlmeister. The PRC is charged with the authority to determine where an inmate will be housed within SCI Mercer. An inmate's opportunity to make a request to the PRC or voice a grievance is when the inmate is seen by the PRC. When an inmate voices a concern or grievance, the PRC is obligated to investigate it and the PRC must follow up on an inmate's request to leavethe RHU. Plaintiff contends that the PRC members stood in the doorway of the infirmary and he did not understand what the PRC members were saying because he was going through Methadone withdrawal. According to DOC records, the PRC at that time told Plaintiff that he would be moved to the RHU upon medical release pending transfer to New York authorities and provided him with a copy of the decision. Additionally, the decision noted that Plaintiff was present for the hearing, reported his dietary, exercise and medical needs were being met and he reported no concerns. While DC-ADM 802 provides that any inmate whose presence in general population would constitute a threat to that inmate, other inmates or staff must be placed on AC status, Plaintiff denies that his presence constituted any of those threats and that he should have been released to general population. To this point, Lt. McFadden testified that he tried to get Plaintiff "out of there [i.e., RHU] because [he] thought [Plaintif...
To continue reading
Request your trial