Vasquez v. Berks Cnty. (In re in Remp, Sgt. Tassone & Co.)
| Docket Number | 1011 C.D. 2020 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 2022 |
| Citation | 279 A.3d 59 |
| Parties | Ramon VASQUEZ, Appellant v. BERKS COUNTY, Janine Quigley, Jeffrey Smith, Jay Phillips, Miguel Castro, Stephen Dew, Michael Johnson, Charles Fisher, Dustin Remp, Sgt. Tassone and CO Matta |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Ramon Vasquez, Pro Se.
Matthew J. Connell, West Chester, for Appellees.
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge, HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge, HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER
Ramon Vasquez (Vasquez), pro se, appeals from the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County's (trial court) March 23, 2018 Order that sustained the Preliminary Objections (POs) filed by Berks County, Janine Quigley (Quigley), Jeffrey Smith (Smith), Jay Phillips (Phillips), Miguel Castro (Castro), Stephen Dew (Dew), Michael Johnson (Johnson), Charles Fisher (Fisher), Dustin Remp (Remp), Sgt. Tassone (Tassone), and CO Matta (Matta) (collectively, Appellees1 ) and dismissed Vasquez's Amended Complaint with prejudice. In the Amended Complaint, Vasquez sought damages under 42 U.S.C § 19832 ( Section 1983 ), alleging violations of Vasquez's constitutional rights and state law tort claims based on Appellees’ actions during Vasquez's incarceration in the Disciplinary Segregation Unit (Delta Unit) at the Berks County Jail from 2014 to 2015. On appeal,3 Vasquez argues that he successfully stated claims for: (1) First Amendment retaliation4 against Dew and Johnson; (2) excessive force against Johnson; (3) failure to intervene against Dew; (4) Monell5 liability against Berks County and Quigley; and (4) his conditions of confinement claim concerning inadequate exercise against Berks County and Quigley. Vasquez also argues that, because Appellees’ POs failed to challenge: (1) his retaliation claims against the remaining Appellees; (2) his failure to protect claim against Quigley, Smith, Phillips, and Castro; (3) his due process claims; and (4) his tort claims, the trial court erred in dismissing those unobjected-to claims.
Vasquez filed his original complaint with the trial court in January 2017 against some of the named Appellees.6 After the then-named Appellees filed an Answer and New Matter, Vasquez filed the operative Amended Complaint, adding the remaining Appellees.
In the Amended Complaint, Vasquez alleged that he was confined at the Berks County Jail and placed on Disciplinary Segregation status in the Delta Unit, which is "a secured unit where[ ] Vasquez was confined to his cell 23 hours a day." (Amended (Am.) Complaint (Compl.) ¶ 6, Original Record (O.R.) Item 9.) Vasquez explained that, "per [the] [I]mate [H]andbook[,] there were [sic] a set list of restrictions as part of the conditions of confinement for [Disciplinary] Segregation[7 ] [ ] status." (Id. .)8 The Inmate Handbook, attached to the Original Complaint as Exhibit 1, indicates that these restrictions include: one hour of out-of-cell exercise, which may be further restricted; restrictions on showers, clothing, mattress, blankets, and pillows; food loaf for each meal Monday through Friday; restrictions on privileges and participation in programs and services; no use of the inmate telephone system; and limitations on books, restricting those in the Delta Unit to one generic book, one religious book, and one law book. (Orig. Compl. Ex. 1 at 22-23.) Vasquez further alleged that he was restricted to one inch of legal material. Vasquez asserted that this was a "silent policy" not contained in any of the handbooks or rules provided to him, that served "no legitimate penological interest," "was excessive in light of managing and maintaining order and security," and "was designed as a form of punishment and a way to withhold Vasquez from reasonably accessing the courts to litigate his cases." (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 32, 35.)
Vasquez asserted numerous allegations surrounding his conditions of confinement. Relevantly, Vasquez alleged claims surrounding his access to exercise. Vasquez averred that, pursuant to a policy adopted and imposed by Quigley and Berks County, he "would be placed outside for his hour of recreation with his standard uniform[,] a sweater and hospital [shoes] to face the harsh wintery weather." (Id. ¶¶ 10, 57.) On days that it snowed, Vasquez asserted, he "would be afforded indoor recreation but would be shackled in handcuffs to a belt for [the] exercise time." (Id. ¶ 10.) Vasquez submitted a grievance for this issue but received no relief. (Id. ; see also Orig. Compl. Ex. 11 at 3.) Vasquez maintained that "[t]his was another policy or custom designed to punish and deter Vasquez from taking recreation" and that the refusal "to provide adequate clothing for these conditions" and restrictions on Delta Unit prisoners purchasing warmer clothing were other "form[s] of punishment within the conditions of confinement." (Am. Compl. ¶ 10 .) Because of these alleged restrictions, Vasquez suffered an aggravation of a preexisting injury to his right arm, "reoccurring nightmares, and mental/emotional problems," which resulted in him being placed on suicide watch. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 21, 25 .)
Vasquez alleged numerous instances of retaliatory abuse from Dew. Vasquez contended that, while there were "three officers assigned to Delta Unit at [a] time who were responsible for the daily operations of managing the unit," including Fisher and Remp, "Dew was not even a formal correctional officer" but a "special operations group[ (S.O.G.)] member" who was responsible for "emergency response situations for increased safety." (Id. ¶ 12.) Vasquez averred that "Dew had an adverse history of retaliating and harassing Vasquez for utilizing the grievance system against Dew for official misconducts," "would regularly confiscate and destroy Vasquez's legal materials, and [would] issue trumped up misconducts to justify [Dew's] harassment." (Id. ¶ 13.) Vasquez submitted a grievance about Dew's conduct to Quigley and Castro but received no relief. (Id. .) The documents attached as Exhibit 3 show that Vasquez first complained that Dew confiscated his legal materials on July 9, 2014, and his appeal from the denial of that grievance, and also include a purported affidavit describing the same conduct by Dew. (Orig. Compl. Ex. 3.)
Vasquez asserted that on the morning of January 8, 2015, Vasquez (Am. Compl. ¶ 11.) During that incident, Dew "confiscated and destroyed Vasquez's affidavit [for] his pending criminal case" that morning. (Id. ¶ 14.) When Vasquez noticed the document was missing the subsequent morning while preparing for court, Vasquez "requested to speak to a supervisor." (Id. ) Vasquez asserted that a S.O.G. sergeant came to speak with Vasquez, and Vasquez informed the sergeant about the incident and "that it was a continuous problem with Dew taking and destroying his legal material." (Id. ) The S.O.G. sergeant told Vasquez that there was nothing he could do and advised submitting a grievance, which Vasquez did on January 9, 2015, including verified statements from two witnesses. (Id. .) Phillips, a lieutenant at the Berks County Jail, denied the grievance on the basis that Dew denied the events, and Quigley dismissed the appeal due to a lack of evidence. (Id. ¶ 15.)
After submitting the grievance, Vasquez alleged that Dew "came by [his] cell and began to antagonize him," stating, " " (Id. ) Vasquez asserted that Dew said so "as an intimidating statement to deter Vasquez of ordinary firmness from utilizing the grievance system." (Id. )
Next, Vasquez alleged that on January 27, 2015, Vasquez "noticed Dew alone again searching inmates[’] cells while they were out for their hour of recreation." (Id. ¶ 16.) Accordingly, Vasquez declined recreation due to his fear that Dew would confiscate and destroy his legal materials. Vasquez averred that Dew then returned, searched Vasquez's cell, and Vasquez told Dew not to touch his legal work. Thereafter, Dew cited only Vasquez with a unit action and placed only Vasquez "on [a] seven[-]day mattress restriction[9 ] for the same nuisance items found in every other inmate[’s] cell." (Id. ) Vasquez maintained that the rules and regulations only provided for unit sanctions from unit officers and mattress restrictions were not among the unit sanctions nor was Dew a unit officer. (Id. ¶ 17 .) Vasquez filed another grievance for this issue but received no relief. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19 .)
Vasquez next alleged a similar incident in early June 2015, after he had just received a final appeal decision concerning grievances against Fisher and Remp on June 5, 2015. (Orig. Compl. Ex. 15.) After Dew ordered Vasquez out of his cell stating, " ‘Let's see what I can get today,’ he then confiscated Vasquez's legal material" for being over the allowable amount, one inch. (Am. Compl. ¶ 31 .) Vasquez alleges that there is no "one-inch rule" in any of the rules or handbooks provided to him and that he raised this with Berks County Jail's Institutional Classification Committee (ICC). (Id. ¶ 32.) The ICC holds hearings every 30 days at which inmates may bring complaints and forwards the records thereof to Quigley. (Id. ¶ 20.) The ICC informed him he was only allowed one inch of legal material and to ask to exchange materials when needed. Vasquez alleged that "he would not get the correct...
To continue reading
Request your trial