Zehring v. Sorber, CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-3195

• Decision Date: 01 December 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-3195
• Parties: CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., Plaintiff, v. JAMIE SORBER, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., Plaintiff, v. JAMIE SORBER, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-3195

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

December 1, 2020

OPINION

Slomsky, J.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 2

A. Inmates' Custody Levels and Housing Assignments .......................................................... 3

B. Plaintiff's Custody Level and Housing Assignment ........................................................... 4

C. June 18, 2020 "Same Side Work/Housing" Policy (the "Policy") ...................................... 5

D. Plaintiff's Work as a Certified Peer Support Specialist ("CPSS") ...................................... 7

E. The Instant Litigation and Plaintiff's Housing Reassignment ............................................ 8

F. Plaintiff's Petition for Temporary Restraining Order ......................................................... 9

G. Plaintiff's Exhaustion of the PA DOC Administrative Review Process ........................... 10

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................................................................................. 11

IV. ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 12

A. Plaintiff Has Not Shown That He Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of His Section 1983 Claim ................................................................................................ 12

1. Plaintiff Has Not Established the Elements of a First Amendment Retaliation Claim .......................................................................................................... 13

2. The Court Lacks the Authority to Order Plaintiff's Requested Relief .......................... 26

3. Plaintiff Has Not Satisfied the Administrative Exhaustion Requirement ..................... 28

B. Denying Plaintiff's Requested Relief is Unlikely to Cause Irreparable Harm ................. 31

C. Plaintiff Has Failed to Establish that the Balance of Equities Tip in His Favor ............... 33

D. Plaintiff's Requested Relief is Not in the Public Interest ................................................. 34

V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 34

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 26, 2020, Plaintiff Charles Zehring ("Plaintiff"), a pro se inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Phoenix ("SCI Phoenix"), initiated the present action by filing a Complaint. (See Doc. No. 2.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Superintendent Jamie Sorber ("Supt. Sorber"), Deputy Secretary Tammy Ferguson, Director Joseph Silva, Medical Director Stephen Wiener, M.D., and Lee Hanuschak, M.D., committed various constitutional violations, triggering civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (commonly referred to as "Section 1983"). One month later, on July 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Petition for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 16) against Defendants Sorber, Ferguson, and Silva ("Defendants"). In his Petition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants changed his housing assignment in retaliation for his filing of administrative grievances and the instant litigation. (See Doc. No. 16 at 1; Doc. No. 22 at 1.)

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendants to modify his housing assignment and to refrain from any further alleged retaliation against him. (See Doc. No. 16 at 1, 4.) Alternatively, Plaintiff requests a hearing on the matter. (See id. at 4; Doc. No. 33 at 1.) Plaintiff's Petition for Temporary Restraining Order ("Petition") is now ripe for review. For reasons discussed below, the Petition will be denied.¹

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a 63-year-old veteran serving a life sentence at SCI Phoenix. (See Doc. No. 16 at 1, 2; Doc. No. 25 at 2; Doc. No. 55 at 1.) SCI Phoenix is divided into East and West sides, each containing numerous housing "units." (See Doc. No. 16 at 1, 2; Doc. No. 46 at 1; Doc. No. 55 at 1.) Each housing "unit" is situated upon a "block" and each "block" is designated by letter. (See id.)

At the prison, Plaintiff works as a Certified Peer Support Specialist ("CPSS") under the supervision of Jaime Luquis, Certified Peer Support Coordinator. (See Doc. No. 16 at 3; Doc. No. 22 at 2, 11.) As a CPSS, Plaintiff is assigned to work in different housing units located throughout the prison ("Work Assignments"). (See Doc. No. 22 at 2, 11, 14-18.) During the relevant time period, Plaintiff worked primarily on the East side of SCI Phoenix. (See Doc. No. 16 at 3; Doc. No. 22 at 11, 14-18.) Plaintiff's CPSS Work Assignment was modified twice in the past 22 months. (See Doc. No. 22 at 2, 11, 14-18; Doc. No. 55 at 2, 3.)

In January 2019, Plaintiff was living in a housing unit on the East side of SCI Phoenix and working in the "Chapel East" and the "Infirmary-POC-SOU"² located on the West side. (See Doc. No. 22 at 11, 15. See also Doc. No. 55 at 2, 4.) On January 9, 2019, Luquis modified Plaintiff's Work Assignment to "B-Unit SRTU/DTU."³ (See Doc No. 22 at 11, 15; Doc. No. 55 at 2.) The DTU is located on the West side of the prison. (See Doc. No. 46 at 1; Doc. No. 55 at 2.) Plaintiffstates that Luquis modified his Work Assignment in January 2019 for the sole purpose of justifying Plaintiff's transition to a full-time work schedule and that, despite this "job label," he never actually worked in the DTU on the West side. (See Doc. No. 22 at 2; Doc. No. 54 at 1; Doc. No. 55 at 2.) Rather, he remained working in the "Chapel East" and "Infirmary-POC-SOU" on the West side until April 10, 2019, when the latter Work Assignment was switched to "P-Unit" on the East side.⁴ (See Doc. No. 22 at 2, 16; Doc. No. 55 at 2, 4.)

On June 18, 2020, the administration at SCI Phoenix "began a process of separating the prison between the East and West sides, for security purposes[,] . . . [by] reassigning inmates' housing assignments so that they would match [their] job assignment locations" (the "Policy"). (Doc. No. 46 at 1.) Pursuant to the Policy, on July 16, 2020, Plaintiff was relocated from the East side of the prison to the West side. (See id.; Doc. No. 16 at 2.)

A. Inmates' Custody Levels and Housing Assignments

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("PA DOC") assigns a custody level to each inmate committed to its care pursuant to Department Policy 11.2.1 ("Classification Policy"). See 11.2.1 Reception and Classification, PA. DEP'T OF CORR. (Jan. 21, 2011), https://www.cor.pa.gov/About%20Us/Documents/DOC%20Policies/11.02.01%20Reception%20and%20Classification.pdf. Under the Classification Policy, an inmate's custody level is determined using the Pennsylvania Additive Classification Tool ("PACT").⁵ The PACT is defined as an "objective," "behavior driven" instrument for "ascertaining appropriate custody levels forinmates," which is "designed to reduce over-classification of inmates resulting in the[ir] placement . . . in the least restrictive security level based on an objective assessment of his/her custody needs." 11.2.1. Reception and Classification, Glossary, supra. "After evaluating certain risk and stability factors, the PACT assigns custody levels ranging from one to five, with levels two to four pertaining to general population inmates." Coleman v. Wetzel, No. 15-847, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120719, at *5 (M.D. Pa. July 18, 2019). "Custody level 5 is the most restrictive level and inmates assigned to this level should be housed in units with a security level rating of 5." 11.2.1. Reception and Classification, Glossary, supra.

Pursuant to the Classification Policy, inmates' custody levels may also be modified to "promotional status" based on "custody level incentives." Fortune v. Wetzel, No. 644 M.D. 2012, 2013 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 493, at *1 n.1 (Pa. Commw. Ct. June 27, 2013). The Classification Policy sets forth "minimum standards regarding a program of incentives" and states that "[a]dditional programs of incentives may be developed at the facility or housing unit level, based upon available resources." 11.2.1. Reception and Classification, § 6, supra. Under this program, "[a]n inmate at a less restrictive custody level may be rewarded through a progressive system of program incentives and privileges consistent with his/her custody level." Id.

B. Plaintiff's Custody Level and Housing Assignment

Plaintiff classifies himself as a "minimum security inmate" with a custody level of "2-3Y." (Doc. No. 16 at 2.) He explains that "2-3Y" is a "custody level [that] the PA DOC uses for life-sentenced prisoners who meet the level 2 criteria but for bureaucratic reasons unrelated to [the] inmate's actual behavior requires that they not be over-ridden and [classified as] level 2 inmates." (Doc. No. 55 at 1.) "Functionally, a level 2-3Y is the same as a level 2 and serves as such to place life-sentenced prisoners on honor blocks where level 3 prisoners are not permitted to be housed."(Id.) The "honor block" to which Plaintiff refers is the Veteran's Housing Unit ("VHU") located in the "'S' block . . . on the East side of the prison." (Doc. No. 46 at 1. See also Doc. No. 16 at 1; Doc. No. 22 at 2.)

Defendants submit that "Plaintiff is a Custody Level 3 inmate." (Doc. No. 46 at 1.) "Custody Level 3" is a "level assigned to inmates who are permitted reasonable freedom of movement within designated areas of the facility. . . ." 11.2.1. Reception and Classification, Glossary, supra. Such inmates exhibit "non-assaultive" behavior and "require frequent, direct supervision." Id.⁶

Plaintiff states that on September 18, 2019, he was moved to the VHU in the "'S' block . . . on the East side of the prison" after he "requested and was selected to live on this unit and to...