Hagan v. Harris et al

Filing 75

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 60 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Damont Hagan.Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on March 20, 2015. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAMONT HAGAN,
Plaintiff
v.
QUENTIN DOLPHIN, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:13-CV-2731
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
The plaintiff in this action, Damont Hagan, is an inmate in the custody of the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, (DOC) currently housed at the State
Correctional Institution at Huntingdon. In this case, Hagan has sued five individuals,
all of whom are contracted with or employed by the DOC, alleging that the
defendants engaged in a conspiracy to modify his health diagnosis and discontinue
his prescription medications in order to keep him hidden from certain Department of
Justice officials who were intending to tour the facility and interview inmates as part
of an investigation.1 Hagan also alleges that the defendants took these actions to

The remaining defendants in this action include Quentin Dolphin, David
Swisher, James Harrington, Robert Marsh, and John Wetzel, the Secretary of the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
1

retaliate against him for filing grievances and other litigation against prison staff.
Additionally, Hagan alleges that the defendants prolonged his detention in segregated
housing, and exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Hagan initiated this action by filing a complaint on November 11, 2013. (Doc.
1.) On December 10, 2013, the District Court ordered the plaintiff to file an amended
complaint by December 30, 2013. (Doc. 8.) Hagan complied with this order, filing
an amended complaint on December 26, 2013. (Doc. 9.) Thereafter, the defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint. (Docs. 20, 22.) In response, Hagan filed
a brief opposing the motions (Doc. 26.), but then filed a second amended complaint
on June 9, 2014. (Doc. 28.)
The corrections defendants have filed an answer to this second amended
complaint, which as answers often do has denied many of Hagan’s factual averments
and demands strict proof of these matters at trial. (Doc. 56.) Hagan has now filed a
motion for sanctions, (Doc.60.), which contends that these denials set forth in the
defendants answer are false and sanctionable. (Doc. 60.) For the reasons set forth
below, the motion will be denied.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prescribes the general rules for
all pleadings, and permits general denials of the type asserted here by the defendants.
2

Since the defendants are entitled to generally deny allegations made by a plaintiff and
demand proof of those allegations, this form of pleading is appropriate in this case
and does not provide grounds for sanctions. Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion for
sanctions (Doc. 60.), is DENIED.
So ordered this 20th day of March, 2015.

S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

3