Prucha v. Watson

• Decision Date: 26 October 2020
• Docket Number: No. 2:20-cv-00199-JRS-MJD,2:20-cv-00199-JRS-MJD
• Parties: BRADLEY JOSEPH PRUCHA, Plaintiff, v. T.J WATSON Warden, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana

BRADLEY JOSEPH PRUCHA, Plaintiff, v. T.J WATSON Warden, et al. Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-00199-JRS-MJD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

October 26, 2020

Order Screening Complaint, Dismissing Insufficient Claims, and Directing Service of Process

Plaintiff Bradley Prucha is an inmate at United States Penitentiary-Terre Haute ("USP-TH"). Because Mr. Prucha is a "prisoner" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), this Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) to screen his complaint before service on the defendants.

I. Screening Standard

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). To survive dismissal,

[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pro se complaints are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation omitted).

II. The Complaint

The complaint names thirty-nine defendants: (1) Warden T.J. Watson; (2) J.E. Krueger (former warden); (3) Kevin Wasson (counselor); (4) Todd Royer (unit manager); (5) J. Dodge (unit manager); (6) Marshall (unit manager); (7) Ruggeri (unit manager); (8) Jensen (counselor); (9) Schmalansee (case manager); (10) Klink (case manager); (11) Kimberly (trust fund supervisor); (12) Rupska (HSA); (13) McCoy (HSA); (14) Dr. William Wilson; (15) Dr. David Lukens; (16) Dr. Genevieve Muscatell; (17) B. Gourdouze (associate warden); (18) J.W. Cox (associate warden); (19) M. Underwood (associate warden); (20) J. Carmichaels (psychology clinical director); (21) M. Macke (psychology technician); (22) Sutter (chaplain); (23) R. Roloff (head chaplain); (24) P. Woolston (assistant supervisor of education); (25) J. Sherman (education specialist); (26) T. Setzer (teacher); (27) Lisa Mayfield (education secretary); (28) Wingerd (lieutenant); (29) B. Carson (SIS tech); (30) Jason Bradley (disciplinary hearing officer); (31) Bondurant (captain); (32) V. Smith (correctional officer); (33) C. Zepperele (correctional officer); (34) J. Kemp (correctional officer); (35) Sara Revell (Regional Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP")); (36) Charles Samuel, Jr. (former BOP director); (37) Mark Inch (former BOP director); (38) Hugh Hurowitz (former BOP director); and (39) John Doe (current BOP director). Additionally, while not listing him as a defendant on pages 1-3 of his complaint, Mr. Prucha also clearly intended to include Warden T. Hunt as a defendant. See dkt. 1 at 11, ¶ 8. Mr. Prucha sues all defendants in their individual and official capacities. Mr. Prucha seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.

According to his complaint, Mr. Prucha has been hearing impaired since the age of ten. With the assistance of hearing aids, he can communicate effectively in one-on-one conversations, but, without hearing aids, communication is difficult as he is required to rely heavily on lip and facial movements. Mr. Prucha arrived at USP-TH on August 23, 2016. Mr. Prucha does not have hearing aids at USP-TH. He alleges that the defendants have failed to provide appropriate accommodations resulting in the following problems:

• Lack of ability to meaningfully participate in psychological, religious, and educational programs;

• Denial of equal access to entertainment;

• Denial of equal access to prison jobs;

• Lack of due process at a disciplinary proceeding;

• Missing alerts to go to the law library, recreation, the shower, and the cafeteria, the last of which caused him to miss approximately 30% of his meals and lose weight;

• Receiving a sunburn after being forced to stand outside in the yard as punishment for over an hour due to not hearing instructions;

• Loss of over $600 in personal property;

• Placing a spending limit on Mr. Prucha's trust account and putting his account on hold due to a misunderstanding about renewal of his contract;

• Retaliation and harassment by prison staff on account of his disabilities;

• Assault due to inability to hear staff warnings.

Mr. Prucha's claims are (1) discrimination based on disability in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, (2) discrimination based on disability in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA"), (3) denial of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendmentin disciplinary proceedings; (4) denial of equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (5) deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (6) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

Mr. Prucha's complaint is 100 pages long. The Court will summarize Mr. Prucha's factual claims by category and include which defendants are alleged to be involved in each issue.

a. Accommodations

Mr. Prucha alleges that he needs an inmate helper to alert him to relevant announcements. He has had inmate helpers at various times at USP-TH, but the monthly salary was reduced from $19.20/month to $5.25/month, making the job undesirable to many inmates. Mr. Prucha was able to recruit certain inmates to volunteer to help him, but some of the defendants interfered with the assignment. Mr. Prucha also alleges he should be placed in a cell close to announcements but at various times he was moved to a more distant cell. He alleges that another inmate received permission to move to one of the cells to be closer to a table and television that white inmates use. The following defendants were responsible for failing to place Mr. Prucha in an appropriately placed cell and for failing to assign Mr. Prucha with an inmate helper and/or interfering with his ability to have an appropriate helper: Warden Krueger, Dr. Lukens, Case Manager Klink, Counselor Wasson, Unit Manager Royer, Unit Manager Ruggeri, Unit Manager Marshall, Unit Manager Dodge, HSA Rupska, Warden T. Hunt, Case Manager Schmalansee.

Mr. Prucha requested an assistive listening device and also wanted a vibrating alarm clock so that he could wake up without the assistance of other inmates. Mr. Prucha first requested this alarm clock in 2016, but due to various setbacks did not receive it until July 2018. The following defendants were responsible for the delay in acquiring the alarm clock and assistive listening device: Warden Krueger, Counselor Wasson, M. Kimberly, Unit Manager Royer, Unit ManagerDodge, Captain Bondurant, B. Gourdouze, J.W. Cox, M. Underwood, T. Hunt, HSA McCoy, and HSA Rupska.

b. Discriminatory Policies

Mr. Prucha alleges that he is prevented from accessing the Administrative Remedy process because Warden Krueger initiated a policy on January 20, 2017, where inmates must initiate the grievance process by presenting their complaints verbally to their unit team.

c. Educational, Religious, and Psychological Services

Education staff P. Woolston J. Sherman, T. Setzer, and Lisa Mayfield failed to provide Mr. Prucha with an assistive hearing device so Mr. Prucha could participate in educational programming. Chaplain R. Roloff and Chaplain Sutter likewise failed to provide accommodations so he could participate in religious services, and J. Carmichaels, and M. Mackle failed to provide accommodations so he could access psychological services.

d. Confiscation of Property

Mr. Prucha alleges that on June 5, 2017, Warden Krueger retaliated against him for seeking accommodations by confiscating his property without providing proper forms and preventing Mr. Prucha's purchase of assistive devices because they had rechargeable batteries.

e. Disciplinary Hearing

On July 17, 2017, Mr. Prucha received a conduct report for allowing another inmate to use his phone number. Mr. Prucha alleges that defendants Wasson, Royer, Wingerd, and Carson targeted him out of retaliation because other inmates commit this violation regularly without receiving write-ups. Mr. Prucha requested a hearing device to enable him to participate in the disciplinary hearing, but Disciplinary Hearing Officer Jason Bradley denied him any accommodation.

f. Surgery and Ear Infection

On August 7, 2017, Mr. Prucha received surgery on his ear and subsequently developed an infection. Dr. Muscatell and Dr. Wilson's treatment for his infection was delayed, causing him pain. At a medical appointment in January 2018, Mr. Prucha learned that the ear that was operated on had been perforated. On January 31, 2018, Mr. Prucha refused to have his other ear operated on because he could not get the doctor to agree to order certain post-operative care plans to prevent another infection.

g. Retaliation for Filing Grievances

Mr. Prucha alleges that Correctional Officer V. Smith retaliated against Mr. Prucha for filing grievances. On September 22, 2017, Smith told Mr. Prucha that if he continued to file grievances, he would tell other inmates that Mr. Prucha was a snitch and would also reveal the nature of his conviction (a sex offense).

h. Harassment

Mr. Prucha alleges that beginning in June of 2018 Correctional Officer Kemp and Correctional Officer Zeperle harassed him because he was a sex offender and filed too many grievances, with some of the animus motivated by Officer Kemp's belief that Mr. Prucha thought he was better than others because of his hearing impairment. See dkt. 1 at 68. The officers conducted...