BISTRIAN v. WARDEN TROY LEVI et al

Filing 240

ORDERED THAT THE DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT (DOC. NO. 197) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY THE UNITED STATES (DOC. NO. 198) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 3/6/18. 3/8/18 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(jpd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PETER BISTRIAN,
Plaintiff,

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-3r10

FILED

WARDEN TROY LEVI, et al.,
Defendants.

MAR - 6 2018
ORDER

KATE BARKMAN, Clerk

By,
Pet>. 'Clerk I
AND NOW, this 6th day of March 2018, upon consideration of Defendants' Joint
I
I
I

Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 197], the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Juris~iction
I

I

and, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment Filed by the United States [Doc. No. 198], the
I

responses and replies thereto, and in accordance with the Memorandum Opinion: issued this day,
it is hereby ORDERED that:
i

I

1. Defendants' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 197] is GRANTED IN
I

PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
I

a. Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIE:P IN P1RT with
respect to Count I (Fifth Amendment Substantive Due Process Failur~ to
I

Protect). Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Defendbits
I

Brown, Blackman, Garraway, Knox, and White regarding Plaintiffs blaim
,
I
I
I

that they failed to protect him from the Northington attack. Summary
I

Judgement is DENIED with respect to the Defendants Bergos, Bowtjs, Gibbs,
I
i

Jezior, Levi, McLaughlin, Robinson, and Rodgers on this claim. Su1fmary
Judgment is GRANTED with respect to the claim that Defendant Jetior was
I

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs safety during the Northington attack.
I

i

I

!

b. Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN P1RT with
respect to Count III (Fifth Amendment Substantive Due Process Punilive

Detention). Summary Judgment is GRANTED on this claim

regardi~g

Plaintiffs first and second periods of confinement in the SHU. Summary
I

Judgment is DENIED with respect to only Defendants Jezior and Leyi
regarding Plaintiffs fourth period of confinement in the SHU.
c. Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Count V (Fifth
Amendment Procedural Due Process).

2. The Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, and, in the Alternative, for ,ummary
Judgment Filed by the United States [Doc. No. 198] is GRANTED lN PART AND

DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Count XV.
b. Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Count XVI as to the allegation that the
!
!

prison officials were negligent in failing to collect the razor issued to Taylor.

BY THE COURT:

-q.£/

~'Z/.-.&Nd..T..k.H~I:.:::A~M=--.R-U~F....::...E-=-,-J~~/

2

er

q ·