Mack v. Yost

• Citation: 979 F.Supp.2d 639
• Decision Date: 24 October 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:10–264.
• Parties: Charles MACK, Plaintiff, v. John YOST, Warden; Tim Kuhn, Associate Warden; Jeff Stevens, Trust Fund Officer; D. Veslosky, Correctional Officer; and Doug Roberts, Correctional Officer, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

979 F.Supp.2d 639

Charles MACK, Plaintiff,

v.John YOST, Warden; Tim Kuhn, Associate Warden; Jeff Stevens, Trust Fund Officer; D. Veslosky, Correctional Officer; and Doug Roberts, Correctional Officer, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:10–264.

United States District Court,

W.D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 24, 2013.

Recognized as Unconstitutional

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, § 2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb et seq.

Charles Mack, Loretto, PA, pro se.

Jennifer R. Andrade, U.S. Attorney's Office, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT

KIM R. GIBSON, District Judge.

I. SYNOPSIS

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 36). Plaintiff Charles Mack, a federal inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Loretto, Pennsylvania (“FCI Loretto”), seeks damages resulting from alleged incidents of religious discrimination. Defendants contend, inter alia, that Mack's allegations do not give rise to constitutional or statutory claims and that Mack has failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The Court exercises federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial portion of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Charles Mack was hired to work at the FCI Loretto commissary in May 2009, where he earned about $110 per month. ( See Doc. No. 22, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 11). As a commissary employee, Mack stocked shelves, filled inmate commissary orders, and cleaned the work area. ( See id. ¶ 9). Mack alleges that, on or about October 2009, Defendant Doug Roberts, the Trust Fund Supervisor, “forcefully slapped [him] in the center of his back” and placed a sticker on his back stating “I LOVE BACON.” ( See id. ¶¶ 12, 16). Mack also alleges that Defendant Samuel Venslosky,¹ the Warehouse Worker Foreman, failed to reprimand Roberts even though he saw the incident. ( See id. ¶ 15).

Mack is a practicing Muslim who does not eat or handle pork-based products. ( Id. ¶ 16). The day after the initial incident, Mack allegedly asked Roberts why he placed the sticker on Mack's back when Roberts “knew that pork products are forbidden in Islam, and offensive to [M]uslims.” ( Id. ¶ 17). Roberts purportedly responded, “[W]hy? [D]o you have a problem with that?,” and thereafter responded, “[D]on't worry[,] you'll be looking for another job soon!” (Doc. No. 22, Am. Compl. ¶ 17). Mack avers that, approximately two days later, Roberts shouted in the presence of inmate workers, “[T]here is no good muslim, except a dead muslim!” ( Id. ¶¶ 1819). According to Mack, these statements created a “tense work environment,” causing Mack to believe that “he could possibly be harmed because of his religious beliefs.” ( Id. ¶ 20).

Mack thereafter orally complained to Defendant Jeffrey Stephens,² who is the former Trust Officer and supervisor to Roberts and Venslosky. ( Id. ¶ 21). Stephens responded by stating that he would “look into it.” ( Id ). Approximately one week later, Venslosky fired Mack from his commissary job for “bringing in commissary lists.” ( Id. ¶ 22). Believing that the actual reason for his termination was retaliation for complaining about the alleged harassment, Mack informed Stephens about the situation. ( See Doc. No. 22, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23–24).

Mack initiated the “informal resolution process” at FCI Loretto on November 13, 2009, when Mack requested to know in writing why he was fired from his commissary job. ( See Doc. No. 22, Am. Compl. ¶ 25; Doc. No. 38–3 at 10). On November 13, 2009, Stephens responded to this grievance, BP–S148.055 (“Inmate Request to Staff Form”), stating, “Inmate was caught bringing slips in for inmates.” (Doc. No. 38–3 at 10). Mack subsequently made an oral complaint to Defendant John Yost, the former Warden of FCI Loretto. ( See Doc. No. 22, Am. Compl. ¶ 27). Yost allegedly responded, “[W]hat do you expect me to do?” ( Id. ¶ 28).

The administrative grievance process began on November 21, 2009, when Mack filed Form BP–8 1/2 (“Administrative Remedy Informal Resolution Form”). ( See Doc. 38–3 at 5). Mack then exhausted the grievance process by filing Forms BP–9 (“Request for Administrative Remedy”); BP–10 (“Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal”); and BP–11 (“Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal”). ( See Doc. 38–3 at 1–14).

On October 19, 2010, Mack filed suit against Yost and other prison personnel under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. (2006). ( See Doc. No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 50–54). Alleging violations of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Mack seeks nominal damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. ( See id.). The United States magistrate judge assigned to the case issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”), concluding that the complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 3 at 1).

After requiring Mack to clarify his objections to the R & R, this Court adopted the R & R and dismissed the complaint on November 30, 2010. ( See Doc. No. 8). On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated this Court's dismissal of Mack's complaint, directing this Court to reconsider its previous ruling. See Mack v. Yost, 427 Fed.Appx. 70 (3d Cir.2011) (Doc. No. 17–1 at 8). In particular, the Third Circuit instructed this Court to reevaluate Plaintiff's retaliation claim and allegations of mistreatment on the basis of religion. (Doc. No. 17–1 at 5, 6).

This Court issued a Memorandum Order on April 12, 2012, instructing Mack to file an amended complaint that identifies the “constitutionally protected conduct” forming the basis of his retaliation claim(s). ( See Doc. 21 at 2). This Court further construed Mack's original complaint as attempting to assert the following claims: (1) a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment; and (2) a violation of the RLUIPA. ( Id.). After providing the relevant legal standards, this Court instructed Mack to identify the alleged mistreatment forming the basis of his free exercise and RLUIPA claims. ( See id. at 3).

Mack filed an amended complaint (Doc. No. 22) on May 5, 2012, and Defendants filed the instant motion (Doc. No. 36) on October 4, 2012. Defendants assert that there have been no constitutional violations and, alternatively, that the doctrines of sovereign and qualified immunity bar Mack's claims. (Doc. No. 38 at 2–3). Defendants further assert that the RLUIPA does not apply to federal prisons and that Mack has failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies. ( See id. at 3). Mack filed a memorandum in opposition to Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 42) on November 29, 2012. The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW³

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to seek dismissal of a complaint or portion of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Although the federal pleading standard has been “in the forefront of jurisprudence in recent years,” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 209 (3d Cir.2009), the standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge is now established.

In determining the sufficiency of the complaint, a district court must conduct a two-part analysis. First, the court must separate the factual matters averred from the legal conclusions asserted. See Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210. Second, the court must determine whether the factual matters averred are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a “plausible claim for relief.” Id. at 211 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)). The complaint need not include “detailed factual allegations.” Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir.2008) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Moreover, the court must construe the alleged facts, and draw all inferences gleaned therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See id. at 228 (citing Worldcom, Inc. v. Graphnet, Inc., 343 F.3d 651, 653 (3d Cir.2003)). However, “legal conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action ... do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Rather, a complaint must present sufficient “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp., 609 F.3d 239, 263 n. 27 (3d Cir.2010) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937).

Ultimately, whether a plaintiff has shown a “plausible claim for relief is a “context specific” inquiry that requires the district court to “draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” ” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. The relevant record under consideration includes the complaint and any “document integral or explicitly relied on in the complaint.” U.S. Express Lines, Ltd. v. Higgins, 281 F.3d 383, 388 (3d Cir.2002) (citing In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir.1997)). If a complaint is vulnerable to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the district court must permit a curative amendment, irrespective of whether a plaintiff seeks leave to amend, unless such amendment would be inequitable or futile. Phillips, 515...