WOODELL v. PA. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AT GRATERFORD et al

Filing 89

ORDER OF 8/30/2019 THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NOS. 73,74,75,76,77) ARE GRANTED. ETC. THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENT,PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR JUDICIAL NOTICE TO AMEND COMPLAINT" (DOC. NO. 81) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. ETC. THE "MOTION FOR AN EMERGENCY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, EMERGENCY SCREENING AND EXAMINATIONS" (DOC. NO.86) IS DENIED. ETC. WOODELL MAY NOT ASSERT ANY CLAIMS ACCRUING PRIOR TO MARCH 11, 2016. ETC. WOODEL L MUST FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2019;IF WOODELL FAILS TO TIMELY FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, THE COURT MAY DISMISS THIS MATTER FOR THE FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO REMOVE THIS MATTER FROM CIVIL SUSPENSE AND RETURN IT TO THE COURT'S ACTIVE DOCKET. SIGNED BY JUDGE: EDWARD G. SMITH ON 8/30/2019. 8/30/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED. (DT)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RANCOURT WOODELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT WENEROWICZ,
et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-1098

ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of August, 2019, after considering: (1) the amended complaint
filed by the pro se plaintiff, Rancourt Woodell (“Woodell”) (Doc. No. 72); (2) the motions to
dismiss filed by (a) Michael Wenerowicz (“Wenerowicz”), Dorina Varner (“Varner”), Gerald
Galinski (“Galinski”), Suzanne Karpinski (“Karpinski”), Laura Banta (“Banta”), George Ondrejka
(“Ondrejka”), Joseph Terra (“Terra”), Jeffrey Baker (“Baker”), Althea King (“King”), Donald
Whitfield (“Whitfield”), Joseph Korszniak (“Korszniak”), Robert Grossman (“Grossman”),
Rhonda House (“House”), Louis Bozelli (“Bozelli”), Kenneth Randolph (“Randolph”), Debra
Hawkinberry (“Hawkinberry”), Joseph Trempus (“Trempus”), Ida DiCio (“DiCio”), Noel Ranker
(“Ranker”), Carl Walker (“Walker”), Eric Armel (“Armel”), Brian Coleman (“Coleman”), Susan
Berrier (“Berrier”), Steven Gates (“Gates”), Edward Manchas (“Manchas”), Michael Zaken
(“Zaken”), Shirley Moore-Smeal (“Moore-Smeal”), Raymond Moore (“Moore”), Robert Marsh
(“Marsh”), Cynthia Link (“Link”), Jay Lane (“Lane”), Marirosa Lamas (“Lamas”), and Richard
Ellers (“Ellers”) (collectively “Commonwealth Defendants”) (Doc. No. 74), (b) Correct Care
Solutions, LLC (“CCS”), Stephen Kaminsky (“Kaminsky”), Dr. Frederick Klemick (“Dr.
Klemick”), Dr. Mohammad Golsorkhi (“Dr. Golsorkhi”), Barbara Ruminski (“Ruminski”), Jeanne

DeFrangesco (“DeFrangesco”), Dr. Haresh Pandya (“Dr. Pandya”), and Dr. Stephen Wiener (Dr.
Wiener”) (collectively the “CCS Defendants”) (Doc. No. 75), (c) Dr. Martinez, Dr. Mohata, Dr.
Saavedra, and Dr. Burke (Doc. No. 76), and (d) Dr. Elisabeth Vonzemensky (“Dr. Vonzemensky”)
(Doc. Nos. 73, 77); and Woodell having failed to file a response to any of the motions to dismiss;
and the court having reviewed the amended complaint pursuant to its screening powers under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); and, for the reasons stated in the separately filed memorandum opinion,
it is hereby ORDERED that the motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 73, 74, 75, 76, 77) are GRANTED
as follows:
1.

Woodell’s claims asserted against the Department of Corrections, Bureau of Health

Care Services, SCI–Fayette, SCI–Rockview, SCI–Graterford, and SCI–Phoenix are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE because they are not “persons” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;1
2.

The following claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE because they are

barred by the statute of limitations:
a.

Woodell’s Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to his

serious medical needs and conditions of confinement asserted against Manchas, Trempus,
Counselor Clark, Zaken, DiCio, RN Nole, Coleman, Walker, Chris Myers, Hawkinberry, Dr. Bolk,
Dr. Saavedra, Armel, Randolph, Bozelli, M. Bzelte, Michelle Howard-Biggs, Moore, House,
Marsh, Moore-Smeal, Gates, Berrier, Coffman, Dr. Burke, Dr. John Synmons, Franklin Tennis,
Marsh, Lamas, and Ellers;
b.

Woodell’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim related to

his 2011, 2013, and 2015 (described in grievance # 636041) placement in an isolation cell at SCI–
Graterford (asserted against unnamed individuals);

1

The court also dismisses these defendants because they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. As explained
in the memorandum opinion, any such dismissal would be without prejudice.

2

c.

Woodell’s Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference as asserted

against: King, Link, Dr. Martinez, Korszniak (with respect to Woodell’s October 3, 2013
grievance), Wenerowicz, Grossman, Dr. Blatt, Dr. Mohata, Dr. Lewis, Dr. Machak, Dr. Smith, Dr.
Tobin, Ruminski, Dr. Pandya, and Klemick;
d.

Woodell’s claims asserted grievances # 315717, # 318248, # 332159, #

151893, # 482582, # 488603, # 480049, # 484914, # 517371, # 559678, and # 636041; and
e.

Woodell’s claim asserted against Williams related to an April 24, 2014

grievance denial.
3.

The following claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: 2
a.

The official capacity claims against individual state employees seeking

monetary damages;
b.

The official capacity claims against individual CCS and Wexford Health

Care (“WHC”) employees because they are duplicative of Woodell’s Monell v. Department of
Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) claims against CCS and WHC;
c.

All claims asserted against the “Commonwealth Defendants” (as defined in

the amended complaint) for failure to allege personal involvement;
d.

The Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference asserted against

Varner and Ferguson related to their reviews of his grievances;
e.

The Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference against

Korszniak (with respect to grievance # 716882), Deputy Superintendents Galinski, Lane, Lamas,
Ondrejka, Banta, Karpinski, Dohman, Baker, and Terra and against physicians Dr. Banbridge, Dr.

2

Woodell failed to allege any facts regarding certain defendants’ personal involvement in the alleged violations. Am.
Compl. at ¶ 58, Doc. No. 72. As such, the court dismisses without prejudice his claims against Ranker, Bolger,
Whitfield, and Kaminsky.

3

Biggie, Dr. Gek, Dr. Golsorkhi, Dr. Schariff, DeFrangesco, Dr. Balk, Dr. Vonzemensky, Dr.
Christian, and Dr. Wiener; 3
f.

The claims (if any) asserted against Ranker, Bolger, Whitfield, and

Kaminsky for his failure to allege any facts related to their personal involvement; 4
g.

The claim for Monell liability against CCS and WHC;

h.

The claim against Ferguson about changes to the grievance policy; and

i.

The access to court claim (asserted against unnamed individuals).

THE COURT HAVING ALSO CONSIDERED Woodell’s motion for “leave to file
supplement, preliminary injunction and/or judicial notice to amended complaint” (Doc. No. 81),
the Commonwealth Defendants’ response in opposition (Doc. No. 82), Dr. Vonzemensky, Dr.
Saavedra, and the CCS Defendants’ joinder in the Commonwealth Defendants’ response in
opposition (Doc. Nos. 83, 84, 85), and Woodell’s “motion for an emergency temporary restraining
order, preliminary injunction, emergency screnning [sic] and examinations” (Doc. No. 86);5 and,
for the reasons stated in the separately filed memorandum opinion, it is hereby FURTHER
ORDERED as follows:
1.

The motion for “leave to file supplement, preliminary injunction and/or judicial

notice to amended complaint” (Doc. No. 81) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART
as follows:
a.

The motion is GRANTED to the extent Woodell requests the court consider

averments in the supplemental filling as amending his amended complaint; and

3

This includes any claims alleged in grievances # 603733 and # 716882.
Woodell did not name Whitfield; however, Whitfield moved to dismiss the amended complaint as part of the
Commonwealth Defendants’ motion. As such, the court includes him for the sake of completeness.
5
None of the defendants filed a response in opposition to this motion. Dr. Vonzemensky filed a response stating she
takes no position on the motion. Doc. No. 87 at 2.
4

4

b.

The motion is DENIED to the extent Woodell seeks judicial notice or a

preliminary injunction; and
2.

The “motion for an emergency temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction,

emergency screnning [sic] and examinations” (Doc. No. 86) is DENIED.
THE COURT HAVING disposed of the motions to dismiss and dismissed claims
pursuant to its screening power; and the court having granted Woodell permission to file a second
amended complaint; accordingly, it is hereby FURTHER ORDERED as follows:
1.

If Woodell desires to file a second amended complaint, he may assert claims against

the following defendants pursuant to the court’s disposition of the claims asserted in the amended
complaint: Varner, Ferguson, Galinski, Lane, Lamas, Ondrejka, Banta, Karpinski, Dohman,
Baker, Terra, Dr. Banbridge, Dr. Biggie, Dr. Gek, Dr. Golsorkhi, Dr. Schariff, DeFrangesco, Dr.
Balk, Dr. Vonzemensky, Dr. Christian, Dr. Wiener, and Korszniak; 6
2.

If Woodell files a second amended complaint, consistent with the court’s

instructions in the separately filed memorandum opinion, he must: (1) name each defendant in the
caption of the complaint; (2) include allegations against each individual defendant in the body of
the complaint; 7 and (3) allege facts establishing each defendant’s personal involvement in the
alleged violation;
3.

Woodell may not assert any claims accruing prior to March 11, 2016;

4.

If Woodell fails to comply with the above requirements, the court may dismiss his

second amended complaint with prejudice;

6

If Woodell has timely claims against individuals not previously named, he may assert them in the second amended
complaint. The court notes that the statute of limitations may ultimately bar some of these claims; however, the court
could not determine said claims were barred on the face of the amended complaint.
7
The court will not accept incorporation by reference in the second amended complaint. Woodell must allege with
specificity any allegations in his grievances that he wishes to plead.

5

5.

Woodell must file a second amended complaint by Monday, September 30, 2019;

6.

If Woodell fails to timely file a second amended complaint, the court may dismiss

this matter for the failure to prosecute; and
7.

The clerk of court is DIRECTED to REMOVE this matter from civil suspense

and RETURN it to the court’s active docket.
BY THE COURT:

_/s/ Edward G. Smith___
EDWARD G. SMITH, J.

6