Thomas v. Tice
| Decision Date | 12 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:16-CV-01487,4:16-CV-01487 |
| Parties | BRIAHEEN THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. ERIC TICE, MARK GARMAN, TIMOTHY MILLER, HEATHER HALDEMAN, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Judge Brann)
(Magistrate Judge Saporito)
Before the Court for disposition is Defendants Eric Tice, Mark Garman, Timothy Miller, and Heather Haldeman's Motion for Summary Judgment. Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. has prepared a Report and Recommendation advising that this motion be denied. For the following reasons, this Report and Recommendation will be rejected, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted for lack of personal involvement.
Plaintiff Briaheen Thomas ("Plaintiff") was, at all times pertinent to this action, an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Correctionshoused at SCI-Rockview.2 On May 31, 2015, Plaintiff was visiting with a friend in the visiting room of the institution when Correctional Officer Walls approached and handcuffed him.3 During a subsequent conversation with Department of Corrections staff, Plaintiff learned that he was removed from the visiting area and was being detained because he had been observed swallowing drugs given by his visitor.4 Plaintiff denies ingesting drugs, and instead avers that he was observed drinking soda and eating peanut M&Ms.5
Plaintiff was thereafter placed in administrative custody pursuant to ADM 802, Section 1.A.1.f., and taken to a "dry cell" without plumbing or running water.6 DC-ADM 802 is the Department of Corrections policy on Administrative Custody.7 Section 1.A.f. of that policy authorizes the assignment of an inmate to administrative custody "[if] the inmate has been charged with, or is under investigation for a violation of facility rules and there is a need for increased control pending disposition of charges or completion of the investigation."8Confinement in administrative custody cannot exceed fifteen days, and an administrative hearing before the Program Review Committee ("PRC") must be conducted within seven days to afford the inmate a chance to respond, and to otherwise allow the PRC to determine if continued placement in administrative custody is warranted.9
Once placed in administrative custody, Plaintiff was stripped of his clothes, and given a smock to wear which, during his ten-day tenure in the dry cell, was not replaced.10 He further avers that his mattress did not have a slip covering, sheet, blanket, or pillow.11 Plaintiff was cold; however, despite several requests, he was not given a blanket.12 This is in contravention of a Facility Security Policy No. 6.3.1.b(4) requiring that all inmates be issued a suicide blanket.
Throughout his imprisonment in the dry cell, Plaintiff further alleges that, despite his requests, he was not provided toilet issue, water to wash his hands, hand sanitizer, a shower, toothpaste, undergarments, or socks.13 Again, this denial stands in contravention of Department of Corrections practice that toilet paper and sanitizing wipes be provided by corrections officers after the inmate uses the bedpan/urine bottle.14 Furthermore, there was constant illumination in the cell during Plaintiff's inhabitancy.15
Plaintiff further describes being handcuffed to the metal frame of the bed for the duration of his confinement in the dry cell.16 This handcuffing was done in such a way that his arm could not move and eventually went numb.17 Plaintiff could not stand while handcuffed to the bed.18 His right arm had nerve damage from a prior gunshot wound which he avers was exacerbated by the cuffing. He was, however, given pain medication when requested.19
Upon admission on May 31, 2015, Plaintiff was given a laxative to induce a bowel movement and hasten his exit from the dry cell.20 From May 31, 2015 through June 1, 2015, Plaintiff had seven bowel movements.21 No contraband was found in Plaintiff's excrement. An x-ray on June 1, 2015, however, indicated that a foreign body was present in Plaintiff's abdominal cavity.22
On June 4, 2015, Defendants Eric Tice,23 Mark Garman,24 Timothy Miller,25 Heather Haldeman26 ("Defendants"), committee members of the Program Review Committee at SCI-Rockview, conducted a hearing to determine the appropriateness of continued administrative custody.27 Defendants opted to continue Plaintiff's administrative custody.28 Plaintiff remained housed in the dry cell for an additional five days, and had five more bowel movements.29 Plaintiff was released from the dry cell on June 9, 2015.
This action was instituted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 20, 2016.30 Following discovery, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on May 30, 2017,31which Magistrate Judge Saporito recommended denying.32 Defendants have since filed objections.33 These objections have been fully briefed, and the matter is now ripe for disposition.34
Upon designation, a magistrate judge may "conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations."35 Once filed, this Report and Recommendation is disseminated to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written objections.36 When objections are timely filed, the District Court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the report to which objections are made.37 Although the standard of review for objections is de novo, the extent of review lies within the discretion of the District Court, and the court may otherwise rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.38
For portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good practice, "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."39 Regardless of whether timely objections are made by a party, the District Court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.40
Summary judgment is granted when "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."41 A dispute is "genuine if a reasonable trier-of-fact could find in favor of the non-movant," and "material if it could affect the outcome of the case."42 To defeat a motion for summary judgment, then, the nonmoving party must point to evidence in the record that would allow a jury to rule in that party'sfavor.43 When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, a court should draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.44
In this matter, Plaintiff brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") alleging that his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment was violated by Defendants. Section 1983 is not a source of substantive rights; rather, it merely provides a remedy for violations of constitutional rights.45 To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct deprived the complainant of rights secured under the Constitution or federal law.46
Here, the parties seemingly concede that, to the extent they were personally involved, Defendants were acting under color of law at all pertinent times. They instead focus their disagreement on whether a reasonable jury could find their conduct to be constitutionally violative. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Saporito advised that Defendants' Motion for SummaryJudgment should be denied because the totality of circumstances demonstrates a genuine dispute of material fact precluding summary judgment, Defendants were personally involved in the alleged violative conduct, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.47 Defendants have since filed objections arguing that (1) the Report does not comport with legal precedent, (2) the duration of Plaintiff's confinement was reasonable, (3) the conditions of Plaintiff's confinement do not amount to cruel and unusual punishment, (4) the evidence does not demonstrate Defendants' personal involvement, and (5) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.48 Having afforded de novo review to the portions of the Report and Recommendation implicated by these Objections, I find Defendants personal involvement in the instant alleged constitutional violation to be lacking. I therefore respectfully disagree with the recommendation of my colleague. My reasoning is as follows.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and imposes duties on prison officials to provide prisoners with the basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.49 While it is well settled that prison conditions constitute cruel and unusual punishment if they result in serious deprivations of basic human needs, the EighthAmendment does not mandate comfortable prisons.50 Rather, in order to properly implicate the Eighth Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that a condition of confinement claim against a prison official must meet two requirements: (1) "the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious;" and (2) the "prison official must have a sufficiently culpable state of mind."51
The first element is satisfied when an inmate is deprived of "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities."52 In the instant matter, Magistrate Judge Saporito began his analysis by noting, and I concur, that the use of a segregated housing arrangement does not, in itself, offend the Eighth Amendment.53 Indeed, segregated housing crosses the threshold of cruel and unusual punishment only when the conditions of confinement are "foul, inhuman or totally...
To continue reading
Request your trial