Hallman v. Stitt et al
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion/ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - AND NOW, this 24th day of April, 2012, upon consideration of the R&R of the mag. judge 36 , filed 2/13/12, & plf.'s objs., it is ordered tha t: 1. The mag. judge's report 36 is adopted. 2. Plf.'s objs. 38 , 39 are OVERRULED. 3. Defts.' mtn. to dismiss 17 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 4. Defts.' mtn. to dismiss all claims against Stitt, Beard, Lawler, Wa kefield, Smear, Barnacle, Williams, Morrison & Mitchell is GRANTED. 5. Deft. Cates' mtn. to dismiss plf.'s Eighth Amendment claim is DENIED. 6. Plf.'s request for declaratory & injunctive relief is dismissed as moot. 7. This case is remanded to the mag. judge for further proceedings. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 4/24/12. (am, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT STITT, et al.,
: CIVIL NO. 1:10-CV-2531
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
We are considering Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Mannion, which recommends that we
grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff, a former inmate at
the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, (“SCI-Huntingdon”), brings the present
civil rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff objects to the recommended dismissal of Defendants Morrison and
Mitchell. The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff failed to present anything more than
conclusory statements in support of his allegations of conspiracy against these
Defendants. Conclusory and vague allegations will not support a conspiracy claim.
Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 366 (3d Cir. 1989). Plaintiff asserts that he has video footage
which would demonstrate how these Defendants “concurred, agreed, plotted, planned
and conspired together.” (Doc. 39). However, in a motion to dismiss, “a court must
consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record,
as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon
these documents.” Mayer v. Belichik, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010). We agree with
the magistrate judge’s finding that the complaint contains only conclusory allegations,
which do not support a conspiracy claim.
Additionally, Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
dismiss his request for declaratory and injunctive relief as moot due to his transfer from
SCI-Huntingdon to SCI-Frackville. Plaintiff argues that his request is not moot, because
he “continues to be targeted, retaliated against by Huntingdon officials, through the
institution of Smithfield.” (Doc. 38, at 1). He alleges that while he was housed at SCISmithfield for court appearances, SCI-Huntingdon officials made “appearances” at the
prison and instructed officers at Smithfield to destroy his property. These facts are not
alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint “may not be amended by the briefs in
opposition to a motion to dismiss.” Commonwealth of Pa. Ex rel Zimmerman v. PepsiCo,
Inc., 836 F.2d 173, 181 (3d Cir. 1988) (citing Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745
F.2d 1101, 1107 (7th Cir. 1984)). Since Plaintiff has been transferred from SCIHuntingdon and his complaint fails to allege that it is likely that he will return there in the
foreseeable future, his request for declaratory and injunctive relief is dismissed as moot.
See Weaver v. Wilcox, 650 F.2d 22, 27 (3d Cir. 1981).
Plaintiff does not object to the recommended dismissal of Defendants Stitt,
Beard, Lawler, Wakefield, Smear, Barnacle, and Williams. Thus, we will adopt the
magistrate judge’s recommendation that these Defendants be dismissed.
AND NOW, this 24th day of April, 2012, upon consideration of the report
and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 36), filed February 13, 2012, and
Plaintiff’s objections, it is ordered that:
1. The magistrate judge’s report (Doc. 36) is adopted.
2. Plaintiff’s objections (Docs. 38, 39) are OVERRULED.
3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part.
4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims against Stitt, Beard, Lawler,
Wakefield, Smear, Barnacle, Williams, Morrison, and Mitchell is
5. Defendant Cates’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim
6. Plaintiff’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief is dismissed as
7. This case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?