[Marshall v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.
| Decision Date | 17 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-0351 |
| Parties | KERRY-X [MARSHALL], Plaintiff v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(JUDGE MANNION)
On January 24, 2012, Plaintiff, Kerry-X Marshall, an inmate currently confined at the Rockview State Correctional Institution, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, filed the above captioned, pro se action, on behalf of himself and four other individuals, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, at Civil No. 2:12-cv-00082. (See Doc. 7, complaint). James Jihad Butler, Shawn Mustafa Saunders, James Shakoor Townsend, and Melvin Ali Lindsey are the four other named Plaintiffs. Plaintiff alleges adenial of the First Amendment right to one's freedom to exercise religion. Specifically, the complaint states that:
On February 1, 2012, Magistrate Judge Kelly issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending, that the four parties who did not sign the Complaint be dismissed, that any putative class action claims be dismissed, and the remaining claims be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 2, Report and Recommendation). The Magistrate Judge found that the only remaining claims were Plaintiff Marshall's individual claims that while housed in SCI-Mahanoy, he was deniedhis religious rights. (Doc. 2, at 5).
By Memorandum Order dated February 17, 2012, Judge Bissoon adopted the Report and Recommendations in full, dismissed the four non-signatory Plaintiffs, and transferred the action to this Court. (Doc. 6, Order).
On May 15, 2012, this Court, recognizing Judge Bissoon's Memorandum Order, directed the Clerk of Court to re-caption the above complaint to reflect the name of the sole Plaintiff, Marshall, in this matter. (Doc. 21, Order.) Additionally, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that Plaintiff did not have standing to bring claims, or requests for relief, on behalf of other inmates, and that Marshall's transfer from SCI-Mahanoy mooted his claim for injunctive relief involving that facility. Id. Finally, the Court granted Marshall's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and directed the United States Marshal to serve the Complaint upon Defendants. Id. The United States Marshal Service served the Complaint on May 17, 2012. (See Doc. 21, Order).
By Memorandum and Order dated January 22, 2014, the Court denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and granted Plaintiff's motion to compel,directing Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's outstanding discovery requests on, or before, February 14, 2014. (Docs. 105, 106, Memorandum and Order). On April 17, 2014, a Scheduling Order was issued, directing that any dispositive motions be filed on, or before, May 30, 2014. (Doc. 107, Order).
Presently before the Court are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. (Docs. 118, 121). The motions are ripe for disposition, and for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment will be denied and Defendants' motion for summary judgment will be granted.
Also before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for enlargement of time to file dispositve motions, motion to file an amended complaint, motion to compel discovery, motion for leave to take videotape deposition of Defendants and Plaintiff's motion for a court order to compel SCI-Rockview to allow Plaintiff to mail his brief in response to Defendants' brief in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. (Docs. 109, 110, 113, 119, 135).
Based on the Court's resolution of the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, infra, Plaintiff's motion for enlargement of time to file dispositive motions, motion to take videotape depositions, and motion for an order to file a sur-reply, will be dismissed as moot. Plaintiff's motion to compel will be denied, as Defendants have responded to all of Plaintiff's discoveryrequests. (See Doc. 112, Defendants' brief in opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel). Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint will be denied for the reasons set forth in this Court's January 22, 2014 Memorandum and Order.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, the discovery [including, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file] and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Turner v. Schering-Plough Corp., 901 F.2d 335, 340 (3d Cir. 1990). A factual dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party, and is material if it will affect the outcome of the trial under governing substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ericksen, 903 F. Supp. 836, 838 (M.D. Pa. 1995). At the summary judgment stage, "the judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson,477 U.S. at 249; see also Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (). Rather, the court must consider all evidence and inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Andreoli v. Gates, 482 F.3d 641, 647 (3d Cir. 2007).
To prevail on summary judgment, the moving party must affirmatively identify those portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. The moving party can discharge the burden by showing that "on all the essential elements of its case on which it bears the burden of proof at trial, no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party." In re Bressman, 327 F.3d 229, 238 (3d Cir. 2003); see also Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. If the moving party meets this initial burden, the non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to material facts," but must show sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict in its favor. Boyle v. County of Allegheny, 139 F.3d 386, 393 (3d Cir. 1998) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). However, if the non-moving party "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to [the non-movant's] case, and on which [the non-movant]will bear the burden of proof at trial," Rule 56 mandates the entry of summary judgment because such a failure "necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23; Jakimas v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 485 F.3d 770, 777 (3d Cir. 2007).
Notably, these summary judgment rules do not apply any differently where there are cross-motions pending. Lawrence v. City of Phila., 527 F.3d 299, 310 (3d Cir.2008). As stated by the Third Circuit, " '[c]ross-motions are no more than a claim by each side that it alone is entitled to summary judgment, and the making of such inherently contradictory claims does not constitute an agreement that if one is rejected the other is necessarily justified or that the losing party waives judicial consideration and determination whether genuine issues of material fact exist.' " Id. (quoting Rains v. Cascade Indus., Inc., 402 F.2d 241, 245 (3d Cir.1968)).
From the pleadings, declarations, and exhibits submitted therewith, the following pertinent facts can be ascertained from the record as undisputed.
The DOC policy for religious activities is set forth in Department of Corrections Administrative Directive 819 ("DC-ADM 819"). (See Doc. 125 at132-152, DC-ADM 819, Religious Activities Procedures Manual, Section 4 - Religious Accommodations). The DOC and SCI-Mahanoy are committed to providing inmates with the opportunity to practice the basic tenets of their faith through religious programs and services, while guarding against the misuse of inmates claiming religious beliefs as a means of obtaining special privileges or breaching security. (Doc. 125 at 7, Defendants' statement of material facts). Worship services for major faith groups, which represent the whole body of a particular faith group, such as Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jewish, Muslim, Native American and Protestants are provided in all correctional institutions. (Doc. 125 at 34, Affidavit of Reverend Ulli Klemm). Religious leaders, including but not limited to chaplains, imams and rabbis are approved by the DOC in order to assure that worship is in accordance...
To continue reading
Request your trial