McDowell v. Deparlos
| Decision Date | 07 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NOS. 1:15-cv-00487 |
| Parties | REUBEN MCDOWELL, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN A. DEPARLOS, Warden, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(CALDWELL, J.)
(SAPORITO, M.J.)
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action, which comes before the Court on a motion to dismiss by the defendants. For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that the motion be granted and the complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In the complaint, plaintiff Reuben McDowell alleges that various Lycoming County Prison officials violated his Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights in connection with a March 30, 2014, incident in which McDowell was assaulted by another inmate, and in connection with related disciplinary proceedings against McDowell. At the time of the assault, McDowell was a pretrial detainee at Lycoming County Prison, awaiting trial on multiple felony charges. To this date, he remains incarcerated at Lycoming County Prison, awaiting trial.
On the evening of March 30, 2014, McDowell was assaulted by another inmate, Jason Welshans, in the day room of J-Block at the Lycoming County Prison. As a result of his injuries, McDowell was transported to a hospital, where he was found to have several broken bones in his face around the lower orbital area of his right eye. Surgery was performed three days later to insert a permanent prosthetic to stabilize the fractured orbital area. McDowell alleges that, in addition to pain and suffering he endured, he is permanently disfigured as a result of the assault, he must rely on corrective lenses to see, and he has suffered mental and emotional anguish as a result of his injury and disfigurement.
McDowell contends that his federal civil rights were violated by two corrections officers, CO Travis Scrobel and CO Johnson (whose first name is unknown to the plaintiff), who were present but failed to intervene to prevent the assault or halt it before McDowell suffered his grievous injuries. In the moments leading up to the assault, both officers were on duty in a nearby control room, where McDowell alleges they would have seen and heard the two inmates quarrelling. McDowell further allegesthat, pursuant to a prison policy, Scrobel and Johnson did not respond by intervening immediately, but rather they waited until a supervisor and additional officers arrived to assist in retaking control of the situation. Only after the additional officers arrived to assist did Scrobel and Johnson enter the day room to separate the inmates and reestablish control of the area. McDowell claims that Scrobel and Johnson violated his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights by failing to intervene to separate the two inmates or take other preventative measures before Welshans physically assaulted McDowell, and by taking too long to respond once the assault commenced.
Immediately following the assault, Welshans was transferred to the prison's Special Management Unit ("SMU") pending a hearing on misconduct charges. Upon his release from the hospital on March 31, 2014, McDowell was returned to Lycoming County Prison and placed in his original cell. Initially, no misconduct charges were issued against McDowell. But one day later, on April 1, 2014, McDowell was issued a misconduct for the incident in which he was injured and transferred to the SMU pending a disciplinary hearing. McDowell claims that the charging officer, CO Scrobel, fabricated the misconduct charges at the orders of anunidentified supervisor to make it appear that McDowell instigated the assault. He claims that supervising corrections officers Sergeant M. White and Lieutenant Josh Rogers endorsed the allegedly fabricated misconduct report despite having viewed security camera footage of the incident that McDowell claims should have made clear that the misconduct report was inaccurate.
After fifteen days of administrative custody in the SMU, McDowell was brought before the prison disciplinary committee on April 16, 2014, for a hearing on the misconduct charges against him. The committee members included Deputy Warden Brad A. Shoemaker, Lieutenant H. Entz, and Corrections Counselor Ryan Barns. McDowell claims that his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights were denied because the committee refused to call the charging officer, CO Scrobel, to testify at the hearing, denying McDowell the opportunity to confront and cross-examine Scrobel, upon whose written report McDowell ultimately was found guilty of instigating a fight and disrupting prison routine. McDowell was sanctioned with an additional fifteen days of disciplinary confinement, including nine days in the SMU and six days in a disciplinary housing block. McDowell appealed this disciplinary conviction to Warden Kevin A.Deparlos, who apparently upheld the disciplinary committee's findings and sanction. McDowell appealed the warden's decision to the Lycoming County Board of County Commissioners, which apparently upheld the warden's decision.
While in disciplinary custody in the SMU, McDowell was subjected to strip searches and body searches, and his cell was searched every night. He was denied recreation time outside his cell, "deprived of meaningful hygiene," and his sleep was disrupted.
On June 3, 2014, Welshan was criminally charged with assaulting McDowell. He ultimately pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve an additional prison term of two to four years and to pay restitution, presumably for McDowell's medical expenses. See Commonwealth v. Welshans, Docket No. CP-41-CR-0000980-2014 (Lycoming County C.C.P.). Although these criminal charges were not filed until two months later, the complaint appears to suggest that they demonstrate that his disciplinary conviction and related sanctions imposed by the disciplinary committee were arbitrary.
McDowell filed several grievances and grievance appeals regarding the failure of Scrobels and Johnson to protect him, the allegedly fabricatedmisconduct report, and other unspecified "violations of [his] rights" by prison staff. Although McDowell asserts in conclusory fashion that he exhausted all available administrative remedies, it is unclear from the facts articulated in the complaint whether McDowell fully and properly presented to prison officials all of the claims raised in this action.
This action was initiated by McDowell by the filing of a pro se complaint on March 10, 2015. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00487, Doc. 1). The named defendants include Warden Deparlos, Deputy Warden Shoemaker, Lieutenant Entz, Counselor Barns, Lieutenant Rogers, Sergeant White, CO Scrobel, CO Johnson, and Lycoming County Prison. The complaint seeks declaratory judgment and compensatory and punitive damages. The defendants have appeared and moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00487, Doc. 32). The motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00487, Docs. 33, 34).
Prior to filing his federal complaint in this action, McDowell instituted suit in state court, filing a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas for Lycoming County on July 7, 2014. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00963, Doc.1-1). McDowell did not attempt to serve the state court complaint until April 2015, nine months after the state lawsuit was initiated. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00963, Doc. 1). On April 20, 2015, the defendants received actual notice of the state court action when copies of the state complaint were delivered to the prison by certified mail from the plaintiff. (Id.). On May 18, 2015, the defendants removed the state court action to this federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. (Id.). On September 3, 2015, the two actions were consolidated pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with this action, Case No. 1:15-cv-00487, designated as the lead case. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00487, Doc. 39; Case No. 1:15-cv-00963, Doc. 12). The facts alleged and claims raised in the state court complaint are substantively identical to the facts alleged and claims raised in the federal complaint.1 (Compare Case No. 1:15-cv-00487, Doc. 1, with Case No. 1:15-cv-00963, Doc. 1-1). The defendants filed a substantively identical Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in both cases, advancing the same grounds for dismissal. (Compare Case No. 1:15-cv-00487, Docs. 32, 33, with Case No. 1:15-cv-00963, Docs. 4, 5). McDowell filed a substantively identical opposition brief in both cases.2 (Compare Case No. 1:15-cv-00487, Doc. 34, with Case No. 1:15-cv-00963, Doc. 6). The complaints in both of these consolidated actions are substantively coterminous, as are the respective motions to dismiss by the defendants. Because the state complaint and related motion to dismiss are coterminous with the federal complaint and related motion to dismiss, and the removed state action and related motion to dismiss were both administratively terminated upon consolidation with this lead case, this report will address the motion to dismiss the federal complaint only.
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defendant to move to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "Under Rule 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss may be granted only if, accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court finds the plaintiff's claims lack facial plausibility." Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing BellAtlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)). Although the Court must accept the fact allegations in the complaint as true, it is not compelled to accept "unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences, or a...
To continue reading
Request your trial