Story v. Wetzel, Civil Action No. 15-1241
| Decision Date | 28 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 15-1241 |
| Parties | STANTON STORY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN E. WETZEL, DORINA VARNER, KERRI MOORE, ROBIN M. LEWIS, L.S. KERNS, BARR, ROBERT GILMORE, TRACEY SHAWLEY, IRMA VIHLIDAL, DR. BYUNGHAK JIN, CAPTAIN ARMSTRONG, CAPTAIN MITCHELL, LT. KELLY, LT. SILBAUGH, LT. HOWELLS, LT. A.J. MORRIS, LT. GREGO, C.O. JOHNSON, C.O. BARNHART, C.O. SCHIRRA, SARGENT PLUMLEY, SARGENT TROUT, and NURSE JANE DOE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Plaintiff Stanton Story ("Plaintiff") is an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC"), and is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Greene ("SCIG"). Plaintiff initiated with civil action against DOC officials John E. Wetzel ("Wetzel"), Dorina Varner ("Varner"), Kerri Moore ("Moore"), Robin M. Lewis ("Lewis"), L.S. Kerns Barr ("Barr"), Robert Gilmore ("Gilmore"), Tracey Shawley ("Shawley"), Irma Vihlidal ("Vihlidal"), Captain Armstrong ("Armstrong"), Captain Mitchell ("Mitchell"), Lt. Kelly ("Kelly"), Lt. Silbaugh ("Silbaugh"), Lt. Howells ("Howells"), Lt. A.J. Morris ("Morris"), Lt. Grego ("Grego"), C.O. Johnson ("Johnson I"), C.O. Barnhart ("Barnhart"), C.O. Schirra ("Schirra"), Sargent Plumley ("Plumley"), Sargent Trout ("Trout") and C.O. Johnson ("Johnson II") (collectively, "the DOC Defendants"), alleging that the DOC Defendants violated his rights provided by the Constitution by placing him in a "dry cell" following a suspicious interaction that Plaintiff had with a visitor. Plaintiff has also has named Byunghak Jin, MD ("Dr. Jin") as a defendant contending that Dr. Jin violated his constitutional rights when he performed an anal probe on Plaintiff and gave Plaintiff an enema. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' action ran afoul of the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.1
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss submitted on behalf of the DOC Defendants, ECF No. 49, and a separate Motion to Dismiss submitted on behalf of Dr. Jin. ECF No. 57. For the reasons that follow, the DOC's Motion will be granted in part and denied in part, and Dr. Jin's Motion will be granted in its entirety.
According to the Complaint and the documents that Plaintiff has submitted in conjunction with the Complaint,2 Plaintiff was removed from the visitation room at SCIG on September 21, 2014, by Defendants Plumley, Johnson I, Barnhart and Schirra under suspicion of receiving contraband from a visitor. ECF No. 12 ¶ 27. See ECF No. 12-1 at 23. Plaintiff was taken to the restroom section of the "strip and search area" and was asked by Plumley "if [Plaintiff] had anything," which Plaintiff denied. ECF No. 12 ¶ 29. Plaintiff alleges that Schirra left the restroom and within thirty seconds announced that he had found "something." Id. ¶ 30. According to the misconduct report subsequently filed against Plaintiff, Schirra saw somethingfall out of Plaintiff's pant leg which was later found to be packaged marijuana. ECF No. 12-1 at 23. Plumley then allegedly threatened Plaintiff with a strip search if Plaintiff did not give him "something." ECF No. 12 ¶ 31. Plaintiff again denied having "anything" and was then taken briefly to a holding cell by Defendants Johnson I and Barnhart and ultimately taken to a "dry cell" in the infirmary by Defendant Kelly and some other unidentified corrections officers. Id. ¶¶ 29, 32-35, 39. Plaintiff alleges that there he was shackled and handcuffed to the wall for 26 hours despite his complaints that his hands and wrists were swelling and numb and that he was in "great pain." Id. ¶¶ 40-44.
On the following day, September 22, 2014, Plaintiff was taken by Defendant Kelly for an x-ray after which he was returned to the dry cell and allegedly re-shackled and handcuffed to the wall. Id. ¶¶ 45-46. Defendant Kelly allegedly told Plaintiff that he would be released only if Plaintiff submitted to an anal probe which Plaintiff agreed to have done. Id. ¶¶ 47-48. An anal probe and enema were subsequently performed by Dr. Jin in the dry cell with Kelly present. Id. ¶¶ 49-51. Plaintiff was then taken to the Restrictive Housing Unit ("RHU").
On September 24, 2014, Plaintiff was taken for another x-ray. Id. ¶¶ 52-54. On that same date, Plaintiff filed a grievance concerning alleged nerve damage to his hands stemming from being handcuffed to the wall. On October 2, 2014, November 20, 2014, and December 17, 2014, respectively, Plaintiff filed grievances against Dr. Jin regarding the anal probe, Dr. Jin's alleged refusal to prescribe medicine for a skin condition, and his failure to administer medical attention for facial pain that Plaintiff was experiencing. Id. ¶¶ 57-60.
It also appears that on September 25, 2014, Plaintiff received notice from the Program Review Committee that Plaintiff was under investigation relative to the events that transpired on September 21, 2014, in the visitors' room, and on October 1, 2014, Plaintiff was escorted fromthe RHU to a misconduct hearing before Defendant Barr. Id. ¶¶ 56, 62. The record shows that Plaintiff was charged with possession or use of a dangerous controlled substance; violating of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, i.e. introduction of contraband into the institution; refusing to obey an order; possession of contraband; violating visiting regulations; lying to an employee; and failure to report the presence of contraband. ECF No. 12-1 at 23. At Plaintiff's request, Barr postponed the hearing so that she could review the camera footage of the incident in question. ECF No. 12 ¶ 62. The hearing was reconvened the next day, at which time Barr allegedly told Plaintiff that she had observed Plaintiff "doing a lot of squirming around" and that she accepted the corrections officers' accounts of the incident. Id. ¶ 63. According to the documents Plaintiff has attached to his Complaint, Barr specifically found that the video showed:
ECF No. 12-1 at 22. See id. at 6-7, 14. Following the hearing, Barr found Plaintiff guilty of possession of a controlled substance, possession of contraband, lying to an employee, and failure to report the presence of contraband and gave Plaintiff a total of 270 days in disciplinary confinement as a result. Id. at 22, 24.
According to the Complaint, on October 3, 2014, Defendant Trout allegedly removed Plaintiff from his cell in the RHU to inventory Plaintiff's property that had been sent from the unit where Plaintiff had been housed previously. During the inventory, Plaintiff informed Trout and Defendant Barnhart that not all of his property was there. ECF No. 12 ¶¶ 64-65. As a result, Trout and Barnhart placed the property that was being inventoried "in the disputed property" pending an investigation. Id. ¶ 66. See ECF 12-1 at 33-35. Plaintiff's complaints that he had on-going cases in both Pennsylvania state and Federal court systems went unheeded and, as a result, Plaintiff alleges that he missed filing deadlines and his cases were "denied." ECF No. 12 ¶¶ 68-69. On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff apparently filed a grievance as well as a request to Defendant Armstrong regarding the confiscation of his property to no avail. Id. ¶¶ 70-72. It also appears that Plaintiff filed another grievance regarding the confiscation of his personal property that his former cell mate, Anthony Shaw, told Plaintiff he had given to Defendant Johnson II. Id. ¶ 75. That grievance was denied, as were Plaintiff's subsequent appeals. Id. ¶¶ 76-79.
Plaintiff submitted the instant Complaint on September 23, 2015, bringing claims against Defendants pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution relative to his being escorted from the visitors' room and taken to the dry-cell (Count I); a claim for cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment relative to Plaintiff being handcuffed to the wall of the dry-cell for 26 hours (Count II); a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim relative to his subsequent confinement to the RHU (Count III); an Eight Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Jin (Count IV); a Fourteenth Amendment claim relative to the misconduct hearing (Count V); a First Amendment access to courts claim (Count VI); a state law conversion claim (Count VII); and a Fourteenth amendment due processclaim relative to the grievance process and a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VIII).
The DOC Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and an accompanying brief on May 5, 2016, ECF Nos. 49, 50, to which Plaintiff filed a Response and accompanying brief on May 13, 2016. ECF Nos. 54, 55. Dr. Jin filed a Motion to Dismiss and an accompanying brief on June 2, 2016, ECF Nos. 57, 58, to which Plaintiff filed a Response and an accompanying brief on June 16, 2016. ECF Nos. 60, 61. As such both Motions are ripe for review.
In assessing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial