SANTOS v. LEHIGH COUNTY PRISON et al

Filing 45

ORDER THAT FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE FOREGOING MEMORANDUM, UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 34 , AND ALL RESPONSES, IT IS ORDERED DEFENDANTS' MOTION AS TO EXHAUSTION IS DENIED. PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION F ILING 39 IS DENIED AS TO THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM. TO THE EXTENT PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ASSERTS ANY CLAIMS GROUNDED IN NEGLIGENCE, ALL SUCH CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 5/19/16. 5/20/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, E-MAILED.(gs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANGEL SANTOS
CIVIL ACTION
v.
NO. 13-3134
DALE MEISEL, et al.
O R D ER
AND NOW, this 19th day of May, 2016, for the reasons stated in the foregoing
Memorandum, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 34), and
all responses and opposition thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ Motion as to exhaustion is DENIED, but without prejudice to filing a
supplemental Motion concerning Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment claims;
2. Plaintiff’s Opposition filing (ECF 39), to the extent it asserts a Cross-Motion for
Summary Judgment, is DENIED as to the Eighth Amendment claim. To the extent
Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts any claims grounded in negligence, all such claims are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
3. Defendants shall submit, within 30 days, a Memorandum of Law and sufficient factual
information for the Court to assess whether a trial is required on Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claims. This submission shall include the following:
a. Sworn statements from any Defendant who asserts he or she was not involved
in the events giving rise to the litigation (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c));
b. Why Plaintiff was released to unit 2C;
c. Who was involved in the decision to place him there;
d. What awareness the individual(s) who placed Plaintiff in 2C had of Plaintiff’s
prior confrontation with Rivera or of Plaintiff’s assorted grievances and

communications with prison staff;
e. Whether Remark Bell and/or Ruben Rivera were assigned to unit 2C at the time
Plaintiff was placed there;
f. Whether Ruben Rivera was ever on Plaintiff’s enemies list; and
g. Why Plaintiff was ultimately transferred to unit 3D on May 10, 2012.
4. Plaintiff shall, within 45 days of Defendants’ submission, submit a response under
penalty of perjury challenging any factual assertions made by Defendants that Plaintiff
claims are disputed. Any Defendant who has shown noninvolvement shall be
dismissed as a party unless Plaintiff establishes a genuine dispute as to that person’s
involvement;
5. While Defendants’ response is pending, this Court will refer this case to the Prisoner
Civil Rights Panel for locating counsel to represent Plaintiff. The above deadlines
will not be stayed in the event that no counsel takes the case.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Michael M. Baylson
MICHAEL M. BAYLSON, U.S.D.J.

O:\CIVIL 13\13-3134 SANTOS V. LEHIGH CTY\13CV3134.ORDER RE DEFENSE MSJ.DOCX