Washington v. Folino
| Decision Date | 28 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 11 - 1046 |
| Parties | HENRY UNSELD WASHINGTON, v. LOUIS FOLINO, Warden, S.C.I. Greene; BYUNGHAK JIN, Doctor, S.C.I. Greene; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC., ("PHS") PA. Doc. Health Care Providers; JEFFREY A. BEARD, DOC Commissioner; LORI WHITE, Deputy Commissioner; JEFFREY MARTIN, Deputy Warden, S.C.I.-Greene; MARK CAPPOZZA, Deputy Warden, S.C.I. Greene; DANNY DAVIS, Warden Assistant, S.C.I. Greene; TRACY SHAWLEY, Warden's Assistant, S.C.I. Greene; DIANE THOMAS, Administrative 2, S.C.I. Greene; LORINDA WINFIELD, Major, S.C.I. Greene; LEGGETT, RHU Commander, S.C.I. Greene; P. WALKER RHU Commander, S.C.I. Greene; C.A. HAYWOOD, Captain of Security, S.C.I. Greene; ARMSTONG, Lieutenant of Security, S.C.I. Greene; V. SANTOYO, Lieutenant of Security, S.C.I. Greene; D.A. KNISELY, Lieutenant of Security, S.C.I. Greene; A. MORRIS, Lieutenant of Security, S.C.I. Greene; S.P. DURCO, Lieutenant of Security, S.C.I. Greene; GREGO, Lieutenant of Security, S.C.I. Greene; J.M. SMITH, Sergeant, S.C.I. Greene; DORSEY, Sergeant, S.C.I. Greene; S. GERVIN, Sergeant, S.C.I. Greene; STEWART, Sergeant, S.C.I. Greene; R.L. RENNER, Sergeant, S.C.I. Greene; FARRIER, Sergeant, S.C.I. Greene; BOWLEN, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; MS. R. HAYES, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; RUSH, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; J.C. MARDERNESS, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; MAYER, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; MCDOWSVILLE, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; SHAFFER, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; STEPHENS, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; MS. T.M. LORA, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; S.W. NEWCOMER, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; J. ARDABELL, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; STUMP, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; NELSON, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; T.S. OSWALD, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; T.A. CONKLIN, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; K.E. VOUGHT, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; T.R. GRUMP, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; KULK, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; J.D. SUHAN, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; E.M. BOGDEN, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; S.A. ARDABELL, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene; MICHELLE ANTANOVICH, Nurse Practitioner, S.C.I. Greene; MICHELE L. HOWARD-DIGGS, PAC; IRMA VIHLIDAL, Health Care Administrator, S.C.I. Greene; NEDRA GREGO, Nurses Supervisor, S.C.I. Greene; JOHNNY MCANANY, Nurses Supervisor, S.C.I. Greene; R. DIETZ, Psychiatric Coordinator, S.C.I. Greene;; ASSAD KAHN, Psychiatrist, S.C.I. Greene; D. SWARTZ, Counselor, S.C.I. Greene; D. GEEHRING, Mail Inspector Supervisor, S.C.I. Greene; HENDRICKS, Property Officer, S.C.I. Greene and J. SMITH, Corrections Officer, S.C.I. Greene, WILLIAM JOSIAH TRBOVICH, MS. DONALDSON |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
It is respectfully recommended that the DOC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Complaint (ECF No. 140) be granted to the extent that Plaintiff's Complaint, and supplements thereto, should be stricken for his failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. The Court should allow Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules. It is further recommended that the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendant Khan (ECF No. 138) and the Medical Defendants (ECF No. 148) be dismissed without prejudice to their right to refile against any amended complaint or new complaint which Plaintiff will file as a result.
Plaintiff, Henry Unseld Washington, is a Pennsylvania state inmate who is presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Greene ("SCI-Greene"), located in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania. He commenced this civil action against fifty-nine individuals and/or agents employed with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") claiming that Defendants violated his rights as protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and, therefore, are liable pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 3.) He also alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986, 1988, 1997, 2000cc, 13981, 15601, and 15602. (ECF No. 3.) Since the filing of his 41-page original Complaint on August 17, 2011, Plaintiff has filed three additional documents (ECF Nos. 16, 123-1, and 137-1) that the Court ordered to be construed as supplements to his Complaint. (Text Order dated May 21, 2012.) In these supplements, Plaintiff added two additional Defendants. Together, Plaintiff's Complaint, and supplements thereto, contain approximately 250 separate factual averments complaining about hundreds of separate and distinct events that have occurred over more than a two year period at SCI-Greene. Plaintiff has also filed countless declarations (ECF Nos. 8, 145, 146, 168) even after he was advised by the Court that he could not continue to add supplemental allegations to his Complaint. Pending before the Court are Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiff's Complaint. (ECF No. 138, 140, 148.) Plaintiff has filed responses in opposition to the motions. (ECF No. 149, 150, 170.) Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.
Plaintiff has a lengthy history in the DOC and is no stranger to filing lawsuits complaining about his alleged mistreatment within the numerous institutions in which he has been incarcerated over the many years. The following is taken from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion dated September 27, 2011, on appeal from two consolidated lawsuits Plaintiff has pending in the Middle District of Pennsylvania against DOC employees and officials at SCI-Fayette (where he was housed from June 20, 2004 until January 17, 2006) and SCI-Huntington (where he was transferred thereafter).
Plaintiff Henry Unseld Washington is an African-American male in his mid-to-late 60s. His long history in the Pennsylvania prison system has been characterized by repeated transfers, long stints in restricted housing and/or solitary confinement, and, he claims, sustained abuse. According to Washington, he was incarcerated in SCI Dallas from 1980 until October of 1994, where he was repeatedly assaulted by staff members, leading to him commencing a "non-stop continuous letter-writing campaign" to authorities and celebrities - mostly African-American politicians and media figures - that continues to this day. Following a transfer to SCI Greene, a "major assault" by prison staff left him with significant medical disabilities. This pattern of mistreatment, he avers, continued through transfer to SCI Mahanoy and SCI Retreat, where guards and prison staff - familiar with his "rabble rousing" tendencies, and angry about the grievances he filed regarding their friends in other institutions - continued to abuse him.
Washington v. Grace, 445 F. App'x 611, 613 (3d Cir. 2011).
As previously noted, Defendants in this matter are past and present employees at SCI-Greene and the Pennsylvania DOC Central Office, as well as Prison Health Services, the independent medical contractor at SCI-Greene, and several medical providers employed therewith. Plaintiff accuses Defendants of a litany of wrongdoing. Although very difficult to summarize, his Complaint, and supplements thereto, contain many distinct legal claims arising out of allegations that Defendants denied him, among other things, medical treatment, access to specialists, meals, toilet paper, outdoor exercise, cleaning supplies, clean linens, visitation, legal mail, soap, haircuts, legal material, grievances and request slips, and the right to practice his religion in accordance with a settlement agreement from another lawsuit. He alleges that he was subjected to excessive force, verbal harassment, conditions of confinement detrimental to his health and safety, and that Defendants fabricated misconducts, read and withheld his outgoing legal mail, and failed to submit his grievances for processing. In the great majority of his Complaint, he alleges that was subjected to ongoing sexual harassment and assault by prison officials and was punished after refusing to have sexual relations with these individuals. With respect to the numerous supervisory Defendants, he alleges that he informed them of the ongoing misconduct of their subordinates but they failed to remedy any of the alleged wrongdoing. Finally, in every averment, he concusively claims that Defendants actions were the result of an ongoing retaliatory conspiracy against him for communicating with authorities. Because Plaintiff's Complaint, and supplements thereto, violates the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, he should be required to file an amended complaint which complies with the Federal Rules.
The DOC Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to comply with the permissive joinder rule found in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part that defendants may be joined only where certain requirements have been met. Specifically, Rule 20(a)(2) provides that:
As explained by one court, "Rule 20(a) imposes two specific requirements for the permissive joinder of defendants: (1) a right to relief must be asserted by the plaintiff against each defendant relating to or arising out...
To continue reading
Request your trial