Rye v. ERIE COUNTY PRISON
Decision Date | 14 September 2009 |
Docket Number | C.A. No. 08-193Erie. |
Citation | 689 F. Supp.2d 770 |
Parties | John Edwan RYE, Jr., Plaintiff v. ERIE COUNTY PRISON, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
John Edwan Rye, Jr., Erie, PA, pro se.
Daniel P. Marnen, James T. Marnen, Marnen Mioduszewski Bordonaro Wagner & Sinnott, LLC, Erie, PA, Alan S. Gold, Gold & Robins, Jenkintown, PA, for Defendants.
On July 1, 2008, Plaintiff filed this pro se action claiming that his constitutional rights were violated during his incarceration at the Erie County Prison. At the time of the filing of the complaint, Plaintiff was incarcerated within the Erie County Prison, but he has since been released. The only named Defendants to this action are "Erie County Prison" and "Prison Health Services."
In response to the complaint, Defendants, represented separately, each filed a motion for summary judgment. Documents # 15, 25. By Report and Recommendation filed May 19, 2009, Magistrate Judge Baxter recommended that the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Erie County Prison be denied and the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Prison Health Services be granted. Document # 37. Defendant Erie County Prison filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. Documents # 39, 40. Plaintiff filed no objections.
In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges:
I filed a inmate medical request on 3-20-08 for M.R.S.A. sic made repeaded sic request to medical staff from X-XX-XX-X-XX-XX. For questioning Department of Corrections treatment, I was place sic into R.H.U. for 46 days confinement.
Document # 3. Magistrate Judge Baxter liberally construed Plaintiff's pro se allegations as raising both an Eighth Amendment claim and a separate retaliation claim1. Neither Defendant addressed the retaliation claim in its motion for summary judgment.
In its motion for summary judgment, Defendant Erie County Prison argued that summary judgment should be granted as to the Eighth Amendment claim on the sole basis of Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies in accordance with the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.2
In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Baxter found that Erie County Prison provided evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff did not fully exhaust because he failed to appeal Warden Kinnane's denial of his initial grievance. However, she then concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate as there was a material issue of fact as to the availability of the administrative remedy process to Plaintiff. More specifically, she explained:
Defendant Erie County Prison now contends that Magistrate Judge Baxter erred in her conclusion. Defendant summarizes its understanding of the exceptions to the PLRA's exhaustion requirement:
While the PLRA's exhaustion requirement is mandatory, certain caveats apply. Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670, 677 (2d Cir.2004). These caveats fall into three categories: when (1) administrative remedies are not available to the prisoner; (2) defendants have either waived the defense of failure to exhaust or acted in such a way as to estop them from raising the defense; or (3) special circumstances, such as a reasonable misunderstanding of the grievance procedures, justify the prisoner's failure to comply with the exhaustion requirement. Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680, 686 (2d Cir. 2004). ... The Second Circuit employs an objective test for deciding whether the ordinary grievance procedures are available: that is, would a similarly situated individual of ordinary firmness have deemed them available. Id. at 688.
The Third Circuit has held, however, that interference with an inmate's attempts at exhaustion impact the availability of the administrative remedy process. Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 529 (3d Cir.2003) (). See also Berry v. Klem, 283 Fed.Appx. 1, 5 (3d Cir.2008) () ; McKinney v. Guthrie, 309 Fed.Appx. 586, 588 (3d Cir. 2009) (); Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir.2002) ().
In the present case, Plaintiff has provided sworn testimony that Deputy Warden Kinnane told him that there was no further appeal, that his decision was final, and that the matter was closed. See Document # 23. Under the case law of this Circuit, this evidence is sufficient to raise a material issue of fact as to whether the full administrative remedy process was available to Plaintiff.
Next, Defendant takes issue with Magistrate Judge Baxter's conclusion that it did not move for summary judgment as to the retaliation claim. Defendant argues that it moved for summary judgment against Plaintiff's complaint "in its entirety" and that "this included Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment retaliation claim." Document # 39, pages 9-10.
Here, the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the Defendant's motion for summary judgment addressed only Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim was reasonable. A claim under the Eighth Amendment challenging medical care and a retaliation claim challenging a placement in restricted housing following his complaints about the adequacy of his medical care are two separate and distinct claims. See Document # 37, Report and Recommendation, page 5, footnote 1. Retaliation claims do not arise under the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Instead, "retaliation for the exercise of constitutionally protected rights is itself a violation of rights secured by the Constitution actionable under section 1983." White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 111-12 (3d Cir.1990). See also Kelly v. York County Prison, 340 Fed.Appx. 59, 60-61, 2009 WL 2414379, at *1 (3d Cir. Aug. 7, 2009) quoting Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d at 530.3
AND NOW, this 14th day of September, 2009;
Following a de novo review of the pleadings in this case,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Baxter be adopted in full. The motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Erie County Prison document # 15 is DENIED and the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Prison Health Services document # 25 is GRANTED. The Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Prison Health Services is dismissed and the Eighth Amendment claim against Erie County Prison remains pending. The retaliation claim against both Defendants remains pending.
Magistrate Judge Baxter will issue Case Management deadlines in this case by separate order.
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, United States Chief Magistrate Judge.
It is respectfully recommended that the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Erie County Prison Document # 15 be denied and the motion for summary judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Beck v. HOLLY TREE HOMEOWNERS ASS'N
-
Douglas v. Jane Doe, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-5574
...procedure is not available. . . if the defendant prison officials somehow prevent a prisoner from using it." Rye v. Erie Cnty. Prison, 689 F. Supp. 2d 770, 779 (W.D. Pa. 2009) (quoting Mitchell, 318 F.3d at 529). Accepting Plaintiff's allegations as true, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that......
-
Knight v. Holman
...Warden will then issue a final decision affirming, modifying, suspending or reversing the grievance response. See Rye v Erie County Prison, 689 F.Supp.2d 770 (W.D.Pa. 2009)(discussing grievance process at Erie County Prison). 3. Exhaustion and Procedural Default Applied Defendants contend t......
-
Tripati v. Hale
...Pa. Mar. 10, 2010) (quoting Johnson v. Stempler, 2007 WL 984454, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2007)); see also Rye v. Erie County Prison, 689 F.Supp.2d 770, 780 (W.D. Pa. 2009) (noting that a prisoner must both "identify a custom or policy, and specify what exactly the custom or policy was") (q......