Sloan v. Chambers
| Decision Date | 11 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 3:CV-12-1954 |
| Parties | AARON SLOAN, Plaintiff v. CHRISTOPHER CHAMBERS, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Judge Caputo)
Pro se plaintiff, Aaron Sloan, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials at his former institution, the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill (SCI-Camp Hill), Pennsylvania.1 He claims that while housed in SCI-Camp Hill's Special Management Unit (SMU), prison officials allegedly violated his constitutional rights when they: denied his request to store extra legal materials in his cell; destroyed his eye glasses; denied him a religious meal; issued him a retaliatory misconduct; made an "attempt on his life"; denied him access to his stored legal materials; lost draft lawsuits sent for photocopying; improperly placed him on a "bean filled" food loaf diet knowing he is allergic to beans; confiscated his property and clothes when he elected to go on a hunger strike; denied him reasonable opportunities to shave; verbally threatened him; exposed him to constant illumination in his SMU cell; and denied him access to mental health therapy. (Doc. 1, Compl.)
Defendants2 seek summary judgment on all claims. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' motion for summary judgment shall be granted in part and denied in part.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 sets forth the standards and procedures for granting a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is proper where "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court must determine "whether the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and whether the moving party is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law." MacFarlan v. Ivy Hill SNF, LLC, 675 F.3d 266, 271 (3d Cir. 2012)(citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 - 48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2509 - 10, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). An issue is "genuine" if supported by evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in the non-moving party's favor. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. A material fact is any fact that might affect the outcome of a suit under the governing substantive law. Gonzalez v. Sec'y of Dept. ofHomeland Sec., 678 F.3d 254, 261 (3d Cir. 2012). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court must view all facts and draw all reasonable inferences "in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014)(internal quotation marks omitted).
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. Santini v. Fuentes, 795 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2553). If this burden is met, the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to material facts." Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3d Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, the party opposing summary judgment "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Saldana v. Kmart Corp., 260 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2001)(citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)).
The following facts are undisputed or, where disputed, reflect Mr. Sloan's version of the facts, pursuant to this Court's duty to view all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.3 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2510.
The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' (DOC) Administrative Directive DC-ADM 804 (DC-ADM 804) is also known as the Inmate Grievance System. It provides inmates with a multi-step administrative grievance appeal process to raise and resolve issues arising during the course of their incarceration. .) Pursuant to DC-ADM 804, inmates must first file a grievance with the Facility Grievance Coordinator at the facility where the events upon which the grievance occurred. (DSMF ¶ 2.) If unsatisfied with the initial response to his or her grievance, the inmate may appeal the decision to the Facility Manager (Superintendent). (DSMF ¶ 3.) An inmate may then appeal the Facility Manager's decision to final review by the Secretary's Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals (SOIGA). (DSMF ¶ 4.)
Via the DOC's Inmate Handbook, inmates are provided with notice of the DOC's Grievance System and the requirements they must meet to properly exhaust their issue through the DOC's grievance process. (DSMF ¶ 5.) Consistent with the language of the grievance policy in effect at all times relevant to this action, an inmate who files "more than 5 frivolous or fabricated grievances within a 30 day period" can, at the prison's discretion, be placed on grievance restriction. (DSMF ¶ 6.) An inmate on grievance restriction is limited to filing no more than one grievance every fifteen working days. (DSMF ¶ 7.)
Mr. Sloan submitted two grievances requesting permission to keep an extra box of legal materials in his SMU cell: Nos. 331074 and 344090. (DSMF ¶ 8.) On August 15, 2010, Mr. Sloan submitted grievance No. 331074 asking to maintain additional legal materials in his SMU cell. (Doc. 40, ECF pp. 23 - 28.) Although Mr. Sloan appealed the grievance to final review, SOIGA, dismissed it as untimely. (Id., ECF p. 23; DSMF ¶ 9.) On September 10, 2010, Mr. Sloan was placed on grievance restriction for ninety days and thus limited to filing a single grievance every fifteen working days. (DSMF ¶ 7, ¶ 10 and ¶ 37; Doc. 40, ECF p. 19.) As his last accepted grievance was filed on November 2, 2010, he was not eligible to file another grievance until November 24, 2010. (Doc. 32, ECF p. 14.) He submitted grievance 344090 on November 19, 2010. It was rejected because he was on grievance restriction. (Id., ECF pp. 17 - 18.) Mr. Sloan could have resubmitted this grievance between November 24, 2010 and December 9, 2010 and it would have been considered timely filed. (DSMF ¶ 34 and ¶¶ 38 - 42.) Mr. Sloan did not resubmit this grievance.
On October 6, 2010, Mr. Sloan submitted grievance 338188 concerning a September 18, 2010, search of his housing unit (E Block) during a power outage.4 (Id., ECF p. 32.) He claimed that following the search of his cell by Defendants Flinn and Flowers his medically prescribed eye glasses were destroyed. (Id.) Mr. Sloan appealed the initial response of his grievance to Superintendent Murray who remanded the matter to Defendant Carberry. Mr. Sloan was advised that he could resubmit an appeal to Superintendent Murray prior to filing his appeal to SOIGA. No further appeal of this grievance was filed. (Id., ECF p. 29; DSMF ¶¶ 11 - 12.) On February 11, 2011, Mr. Sloan filed grievance 353035 concerning the replacement of his prescription eye glasses destroyed in the September 18, 2010 cell search. The grievance also complained of the constant illumination in his SMU cell which "causes the pain already being inflicted [due to the loss of his glasses] to be intensified." (Id., ECF p. 43; DSMF ¶¶ 13 - 14.) In the initial response, he was advised that the security lighting in the unit would not be changed. (Id., ECF pp. 45 - 46.) Ultimately, his grievance was dismissed at final review due to Mr. Sloan's failure to provide SOIGA with the required documentation for proper review. (Id., ECF p. 41.)
On November 9, 2010, Mr. Sloan submitted grievance 342338 concerning an October 26, 2010 event where Defendants Evans and Goss opened his cell door without following proper procedures. He claims they did this to make an attempt on his life. (Id., ECF p. 40.) The grievance was rejected due to Mr. Sloan being on grievance restrictions. (Id., ECF p. 39.) However, upon review of Mr. Sloan's appeal, Superintendent Murray reactivated the grievancewith the direction that the Security Office investigate his allegations in accordance with the "Inmate Abuse Allegations Monitoring" policy. (Id., ECF p. 37.) An internal investigation of Mr. Sloan's allegations, including review of available videotape of the incident, determined his claims to be unsubstantiated. (Doc. 32, ECF pp. 39 - 41.) Superintendent Murray denied Mr. Sloan's appeal of the investigation's findings. (Id., ECF p. 35.) Mr. Sloan's appeal to SOIGA was dismissed due to his failure to provide SOIGA the required documentation for review. (Id., ECF p. 33; DSMF 16.)
Mr. Sloan submitted grievance 343811 on November 18, 2010, after SMU staff announced that they would deny SMU inmates access their stored legal property. Mr. Sloan asserts he was denied access to his legal property. (Doc. 32, ECF p. 5.) The grievance was rejected because Mr. Sloan was on grievance restriction.5 (DSMF ¶ 19 and ¶ 37; Doc. 40, ECF p. 19.) SOIGA upheld the institution's rejection of grievance 343811. (Doc. 32, ECF p. 1; DSMF ¶ 19, ¶ 36.) Mr. Sloan had until December 10, 2010 to refile this grievance but failed to do so. (DSMF ¶¶ 36 - 38; ¶ 42; and ¶ 44.)
On December 1, 2010, Mr. Sloan filed grievance 345236 concerning multiple issues. (Doc. 40, ECF p. 51.) One of the issues raised was that Defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial