Mack v. Clark
| Decision Date | 11 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:21-CV-00004-RAL |
| Parties | SHERMAN MACK, Plaintiff v. SUPERINTENDENT CLARK; DEPUTY ADAMS; DEPUTY ENNIS; JOHN DOE 1, PRC BOARD MEMBER AT SCI ALBION; JOHN DOE 2, PRC BOARD MEMBER AT SCI ALBION; JOHN DOE 3, PRC BOARD MEMBER AT SCI ALBION; JOHN DOE 4, PRC BOARD MEMBER AT SCI ALBION; JOHN WETZEL; CAPTAIN SISSEM; LIEUTENANT FLOYD, Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
SHERMAN MACK, Plaintiff
v.
SUPERINTENDENT CLARK; DEPUTY ADAMS; DEPUTY ENNIS; JOHN DOE 1, PRC BOARD MEMBER AT SCI ALBION; JOHN DOE 2, PRC BOARD MEMBER AT SCI ALBION; JOHN DOE 3, PRC BOARD MEMBER AT SCI ALBION; JOHN DOE 4, PRC BOARD MEMBER AT SCI ALBION; JOHN WETZEL; CAPTAIN SISSEM; LIEUTENANT FLOYD, Defendants
No. 1:21-CV-00004-RAL
United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, Erie Division
July 11, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
ECF NO. 36
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Sherman Mack (Mack), a prisoner in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC), filed this pro se action against John E. Wetzel, the former Secretary of the DOC, and nine DOC employees who work at the State Correctional Institution at Albion (SCI-Albion). He asserts that the Defendants violated his rights guaranteed under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and seeks redress of those violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[1]
The Defendants moved to dismiss Mack's complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 21. Mack filed a motion to amend his complaint, which the Court granted. Upon the docketing of Mack's amended complaint, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. ECF Nos. 27, 28, 30. The Defendants then moved to dismiss Mack's amended complaint for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 36. The Court ordered Mack to respond, ECF No. 38, and granted his numerous requests for extension of time to do so. ECF Nos. 40, 42, 45. After his latest extended response deadline passed, the Court issued an order directing Mack to show cause for his failure to respond or, alternatively, to file a response by June 29, 2022. ECF No. 52. Thereafter, counsel entered his appearance on Mack's behalf and filed a brief in opposition to Defendants' motion. ECF No. 54. The motion is ready for decision.
II. Allegations of the Amended Complaint[2]
Mack claims that the Defendants conspired (1) to classify him in a manner that resulted in his solitary confinement under highly restrictive conditions and with no opportunity to challenge this classification, and (2) to deny him access to his prison account funds. Mack asserts that the Defendants took both actions in violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and in retaliation for his engaging in constitutionally protected activity in violation of his First Amendment rights. He also challenges the conditions of his confinement
under the Eighth Amendment.
The Court accepts the following factual allegations in Mack's amended complaint as true for purposes of Defendants' motion to dismiss. See U.S. Express Lines Ltd. v. Higgins, 281 F.3d 383, 388 (3d Cir. 2002). Mack was under investigation by members of the Security Department at SCI-Albion based on allegations or suspicion that he was smuggling drugs into the prison. ECF No. 29, ¶ 18. On November 13, 2018, unnamed officers moved Mack from his cell in general population to one in the Restricted Housing Unit (RHU). Id.
On January 28, 2019, Defendant Lieutenant Floyd interviewed Mack. Id., ¶¶ 12, 19. “Mack invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination,” and “[a]s a result, Defendant Floyd threatened Mack with a misconduct report and the confiscation of funds in his prison account.” Id., ¶ 19. Mack alleges no other facts concerning the conduct of the interview.
Thirty-three days later, Mack tried to buy “legal materials” from the law library. Id., ¶ 20. He was unable to do so, however, because he “was denied access to the funds in his prison account.” Id. He does not identify the individual or individuals who allegedly denied him use of his prison account funds or “froze” his account. Later that same day, Mack sent Defendant Superintendent Clark a request slip about his issue with his prison account. Id., ¶ 21; 29-1, p. 1. On March 29, 2019, Mack filed a grievance through SCI-Albion's administrative grievance system. Id., ¶ 22; 29-1, pp. 2-3. He “challeng[ed] the penological justification of denying him access to the funds in his prison account without notice, the opportunity to be heard, or the right to appeal said denial of the funds in his account.” Id.
Mack alleges that Defendants Clark, Floyd, and Sissem conspired, with a retaliatory motive, “to deny him his Due Process rights attached to the funds in his account.” Id., ¶¶ 24, 26.
Sissem denied his grievance at initial review. Id., ¶ 25. Sissem “lied” by “falsely stating” that Mack's “account [was] not frozen.” Id., ¶ 25; 29-1, p. 4.
Later, on or about April 2, 2019, Mack spoke with members of SCI-Albion's Program Review Committee (PRC)-Defendants Adams, Ennis, and John Does One, Two, Three, and Four. Id., ¶ 27. Mack explained his belief that Clark, Floyd, and Sissem were conspiring “to retaliate against him for invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.” Ennis then said, “[y]eah, I saw your little grievance about that. We have a place for people like you.” Id., ¶28. Mack asked what he meant by “people like me? Black people?” Id.,¶29. Adams replied, “[n]o, Mr. Mack, not Black people. People who refuse to cooperate with security, who then file frivolous grievances and lawsuits.” Id., ¶ 30. John Doe Three then asked Mack, “[d]o you know what RRL is, Mr. Mack?” “No, what's that?” Id., ¶ 31. John Doe One then explained that the PRC was adding Mack to the RRL. Id., ¶ 32. John Doe Four explained that this meant indefinite solitary confinement. Id., ¶ 33. Mack then asked Adams, Ennis, and all four John Doe Defendants “if it was legal to place him on RRL in retaliation for his filing of grievances and lawsuits, to which Defendant Ennis replied, ‘We've put people on RRL for less.'” Id., ¶ 34. Mack also claims, without supporting factual allegations, that these Defendants conspired with Clark, Floyd, and Sissem to place him on the RRL. Id., ¶ 35.
On April 9, 2019, unspecified individuals transferred Mack to SCI-Forest. Id., ¶ 38. Two days later, SCI-Forest's PRC members told him that SCI-Albion's PRC had placed him on RRL and that, as a result, he “will be housed in indefinite solitary confinement for an indeterminate period of time, without the opportunity to participate in any educational, vocational, recreational, psychological and/or behavioral programming and services whatsoever.” Id., ¶ 38.
The RRL has established criteria for assignment which Mack alleges he does not meet. Id., ¶ 36. No one provided Mack with written notice of his RRL placement, an in-person hearing, any opportunity to be heard, or a chance to appeal. Id., ¶ 37. Mack has had no “meaningful review of his RRL placement.” Id. Mack claims that all Defendants conspired to deny him any meaningful, individualized review of his RRL placement. Id., ¶ 53. Mack grieved his RRL placement through SCI-Foresf s administrative grievance system. Id., ¶ 39. He also grieved this placement through SCI-Albion's system. Id., ¶ 40. See also ECF No. 29-1, pp. 13-21.
“Defendant Wetzel has created policies, practices and customs that have left [Mack] on indefinite solitary confinement without any way to appeal..or “any meaningful, individualized review of his RRL status.” Id., ¶¶ 46, 47. While Mack was on the RRL, Wetzel “ignored any and all of [his] requests for review and relief of his retaliatory RRL placement” and “ignored all of his requests for any type of educational, vocational, recreational, behavioral or psychological programs and services.”[3] Id., ¶¶ 54, 55. Mack alleges that living in solitary confinement “has caused [him] psychological and emotional stress and anxiety, which has caused him to lose sleep and weight, and is affecting his ability to communicate and interact with other people.” Id., ¶ 49. “[E]ach Defendant” is alleged to have ignored Mack's unspecified “pleas for help with his psychological and emotional harm.” Id., ¶ 50.
As relief, Mack seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, a declaration that his rights have been violated, and injunctive relief in the form of removal from the RRL and a prohibition on future retaliatory conduct. Id., ¶¶ 57-63.
Review of court dockets reveals that a nine-count criminal complaint was filed against Mack in a Pennsylvania Magisterial District Court on June 6, 2019. He was charged with violating a state law that prohibits furnishing (in multiple ways) any controlled substance to any convict in a prison, conspiracy to commit bribery, and other crimes. After initial proceedings, the magisterial district judge transferred his case to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Erie County Court of Common Pleas. His case is active and scheduled for trial.[4]
III. Standard of Review
Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of Mack's amended complaint. Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993). In deciding a motion to dismiss, the court is not opining on whether the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits; rather, the plaintiff must only present factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007) (citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-36 (3d ed. 2004)). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). A complaint should only be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) if it fails to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (rejecting the traditional Rule 12(b)(6) standard established in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). In making this determination, the court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint and views them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial