Warren v. King
| Decision Date | 27 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION No. 14-cv-6249 |
| Parties | THOMAS WARREN, Plaintiff, v. LENORA KING, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Before the Court are Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 45), Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition thereto (Doc. No. 53), Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 52), and Defendant's Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. No. 54). For the reasons given below, the Defendants' Motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. An Order follows.
Plaintiff Thomas Warren was, at the time of the events in question, a resident at Coleman Hall, "a facility that provides residential reentry treatment services and houses Technical Parole Violators." Doc. No. 45 at 3 of 21. Mr. Warren maintains that he had the status of "parolee" during the relevant events. Compl. at ¶ 3. During the time Mr. Warren resided at Coleman Hall, Defendant Lenora King was a unit manager there and Defendant Fred Shapiro was the director. Compl. at ¶¶ 4-5.
Mr. Warren alleges that on October 3, 2013, at approximately 1:35 PM, Ms. King entered Mr. Warren's dorm bathroom. Compl. at ¶¶ 8-9. At the time, Mr. Warren was in a closed stall "removing his bowels." Compl. at ¶ 9. Two other residents of the dorm were washing up in the bathroom at the same time. Compl. at ¶ 9. Ms. King directed Mr. Warren to leave the bathroom. Compl. at ¶ 10. When Mr. Warren informed Ms. King that he was removing his bowels, Ms. King told Mr. Warren that if he did not come out of the bathroom he would not be re-paroled on October 7, 2013. Compl. at ¶ 11. Mr. Warren exited the bathroom stall without properly cleaning himself. Compl. at ¶ 12.
Ms. King pat searched Mr. Warren. Compl. at ¶ 13. She then radioed for staff backup and ordered two male staff members to strip search Mr. Warren. Compl. at ¶ 14. Mr. Warren alleges this took place in front of Ms. King and two other residents of Coleman Hall. Compl. at ¶ 15.
After the strip search, Ms. King took Mr. Warren into the hallway, where she told him he was in trouble with Mr. Shapiro and that if he did not tell her what was going on in the bathroom, Mr. Warren would not be re-paroled on October 7, 2013. Compl. at ¶¶ 17-19. Ms. King then had Mr. Warren taken to a detention room where Mr. Shapiro asked Mr. Warren to tell them what he knew. Compl. at ¶¶ 20, 22. When Mr. Warren stated that he did not know anything, Mr. Shapiro instructed Ms. King to terminate Mr. Warren from the Coleman Hall facility. Compl. at ¶ 23. Mr. Warren was told thatthis was because he refused to "snitch." Id. When Mr. Warren asked if he would receive a hearing, as he understood to be standard procedure, "Defendant Shapiro told plaintiff Warren that life is not fair." Compl. at ¶ 24. A parole agent placed Mr. Warren in shackles and informed him that he was being arrested for contraband. Compl. at ¶ 26.
On October 7, 2013, Mr. Warren sent a grievance letter to Mr. Shapiro. Compl. at ¶ 35; Doc. No. 53, Ex. L, at 75 of 101. He did not receive a response. Compl. at ¶ 35. On October 29, 2013, Mr. Warren's parole was revoked by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. Compl. at ¶ 30; Doc. No. 1, Ex. A, at 34 of 71. On November 1, 2013, Mr. Warren filed an Administrative Appeal to the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. Compl. at ¶ 36. He did not receive a response. Id.
On October 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a pro se civil action against Ms. King and Mr. Shapiro under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 He alleges violations of his Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights; he seeks declaratory, injunctive, compensatory, and punitive relief. Compl. at ¶ 43-46. Defendants moved for Summary Judgment on January 21, 2016; Plaintiff filed his response and Cross-Motion on March 21, 2016; Defendants filed their response in opposition on April 8, 2016.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if 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). "A fact is material when its resolution 'might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,' and a dispute about a material fact is genuine 'if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'" Justofin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 517, 521 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). In making this determination, "the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts ... must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (alteration in original) (internal quotation and citation omitted). We hold a pro se plaintiff bringing a civil rights suit to a less stringent standard than a trained lawyer, and will liberally construe the plaintiff's allegations. Nieves v. Dragovich, No. CIV.A. 96-6525, 1997 WL 698490, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 1997).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA") provides that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or othercorrectional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Defendants argue that Mr. Warren's claims must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The burden is on the Defendants to show that Mr. Warren "failed to meet the requirements of the grievance process" in place. Brown v. Lewis, 865 F.Supp.2d 642, 646-47 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (internal citation omitted).
The Defendants claim that Mr. Warren failed to follow the Coleman Hall grievance procedure outlined in the Resident Handbook. He did not follow it at the time of the events in question and upon his return to Coleman Hall in March 2014, they argue, he had another opportunity to file a grievance and he failed to do so. Additionally, while Mr. Warren claims he wrote a letter explaining his grievances to Mr. Shapiro, the Defendants argue there is no evidence the letter was mailed, or that it was received by Mr. Shapiro.
The grievance procedure of Coleman Hall requires residents to complete a grievance form, which is "available on the housing unit," and place it in a grievance box. Doc. No. 45-2, Ex. B, at 16 of 30. After his removal from Coleman Hall, Mr. Warren lacked access to both the form and the box. The procedure indicates it is for "[r]esidents experiencing problems with the program" and that filing a grievance "will not interfere with a resident's status or progress in the program." Id. Thus the procedure appears to be for current residents, not individuals who had been terminated from theprogram. As Mr. Warren's grievance involved his termination from the program and not conditions within the program, it is not clear that these procedures apply to him. Additionally, as the Defendants themselves indicate, this grievance procedure was not available to Mr. Warren because he no longer resided at Coleman Hall and was terminated before he had an opportunity to file a grievance. "A grievance procedure is not available even if one exists on paper if the defendant prison officials somehow prevent a prisoner from using it." Alden v. Smith, No. 3:CV-05-1735, 2007 WL 776868 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2007) (citing Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 529 (3d Cir. 2003)); See also Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109, 112-13 (3d Cir. 2002) (). Accordingly, we find that the Defendants did not meet their burden to show that there is no genuine dispute as to whether Mr. Coleman exhausted his available administrative remedies.
The PLRA provides the following limitation on recovery: "No federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act ... ." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The Defendants allege that Mr. Warren can claim no damages because he has not indicated that he suffered any physical injuries as a result of this alleged incident. Mr. Warrendoes not contest that he claims no physical injury, but instead claims he is entitled to recover certain damages nonetheless.
It is well settled that "Section 1997e(e)'s requirement that a prisoner demonstrate physical injury before he can recover for mental or emotional injury applies only to claims for compensatory damages." Mitchell, 318 F.3d at 533. Claims seeking nominal or punitive damages, or seeking injunctive or declaratory relief, for violations of constitutional rights may proceed without claim of any physical injury. Id. Mr. Warren seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and both punitive and compensatory damages. Compl. at ¶¶ 43-46. Accordingly, we grant summary judgment to the Defendants on the issue of Mr. Warren's compensatory damages, but deny their claim that he has alleged no damages, as he remains entitled to claim declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as punitive damages, without claiming physical injury.
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ... ." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. This protects incarcerated individuals, who "retain certain constitutionally protected property and liberty interests." Fantone v. Lantini, 780 F.3d 184, 185 (3d Cir. 2015). However, "a prisoner does not have a liberty interest in remaining in a preferred facility within a state's prison system." Asquith v. Dep't of Corr., 186 F.3d 407, 410 (3d Cir. 1999). The protections...
To continue reading
Request your trial