McClure v. Haste et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: 1. The motion to dismiss the amended complaint 31 filed by Dfts Carroll and Hostetter is DENIED.2. Within 30 days of the date of this order Dfts Carroll and Hostetter shall file an answer to the amended complaint 29 .3. All d iscovery shall be completed within 120 days of the date of this order.4. Any further dispositive mtns shall be filed within 30 days of the close of discovery.5. McClures mtn to compel discovery 39 is DENIED as premature.6. The mtn to stay discovery 43 filed by Dfts Carroll and Hostetter is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 2/8/17. (ma)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TABU N. MCCLURE,
COMMISSIONER JEFFREY T.
HASTE, et al.,
CIVIL NO. 1:14-CV-2249
On November 25, 2014, Tabu N. McClure, an inmate
presently confined at the State Correctional
Institution, Somerset, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Somerset”),
filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 relating to the conditions of confinement
which he claimed he was exposed to while incarcerated at
the Dauphin County Prison. Doc. 1.
McClure named the
following individuals as defendants: (1) Commissioner
Jeffrey T. Haste; (2) Warden Dominic DeRose; (3) Deputy
Warden Nichols; (3) Deputy Warden D.W. Carroll; (4)
Major Stewart; (5) Captain Neidigh; (6) Lieutenant
Carnazzo; (7) Lieutenant Hostetter; and (8) Sergeant R.
McClure also named the Board of Dauphin
County Prison and an “Unknown number of John Does” as
defendants. On February 19, 2016, the original complaint
was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint.1
The order provided that if McClure did not file an
amended complaint the case would be closed. Also, the
court stated that if the “John Does” were not identified
they would be dismissed from the case under the
authority of Sheetz v. Morning Call, 130 F.R.D. 34 (E.D.
On March 30, 2016, McClure filed an amended
complaint naming the following five defendants: (1)
Commissioner Jeffrey T. Haste; (2) Deputy Warden D.W.
Carroll; (3) Dauphin County Prison Board; (4) Lieutenant
Hostetter; and (5) Sergeant R. Adams.
In the amended
complaint McClure essentially repeated the allegations
of the original complaint with a few minor changes. He
added nothing new with respect to Commissioner Haste,
the Dauphin County Prison Board and Sergeant Adams and
he did not identify the “John Doe” defendants. The court
The court incorporates herein by reference the
memorandum issued on February 19, 2016.
screened the amended complaint and permitted due process
claims to proceed against two defendants and directed
that those defendants filed an answer or other
Pending before the Court is a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. For the reasons
set forth below, the court will deny the motion.
McClure in the amended complaint paragraphs 11
though 36 claimed that he was a pretrial detainee during
the time he was confined at the Dauphin County Prison;
on February 8, 2013, he received a misconduct and was
“placed in the hole about 11:30 p.m., without sheets, a
blanket, nor toilet paper” and he “only had a t-shirt
and jumpsuit bottoms;” “it was the middle of winter and
the cell was very cold;” after two hours in the cold
cell he ripped the stuffing from inside his mattress and
crawled inside; he was subsequently issued a misconduct
for destroying county property and covering his cell
window with the stuffing; he denied that he used the
stuffing to cover his cell window; on February 9, 2013,
at about 2:00 a.m. his mattress was taken from him
before a hearing was held; after a disciplinary hearing
apparently on or about February 9, 2013, he was assessed
$42.00 for damaging the mattress and 30-days of
disciplinary custody was imposed; he claims there was no
mention by the hearing officer of a mattress
restriction; subsequently his mattress was taken from
him between the hours of 8:00 a.m and 9:00 p.m. and this
restriction lasted from February to September, 2013;
between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. he was
given the damaged mattress; and he claims that the
decision to impose a mattress restriction was
implemented by Lieutenant Hostetter and Deputy Warden
Furthermore, McClure alleges in the amended
complaint that during his confinement at Dauphin County
Prison he was a pretrial detainee.
“[P]retrial detainees have ‘federally protected
liberty interests that are different in kind from those
of sentenced inmates.’” Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352,
372 (3d Cir. 2012). The standard which applies is set
forth in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979).
Supreme Court in that case made it clear that a pretrial
detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of
guilt in accordance with due process of law. Id.
However, the key was whether the detention or
segregation was punishment or a condition “reasonably
related to a penal institutions interest in maintaining
jail security” which “typically pass[es] constitutional
muster.” Bistrian, 696 F.3d at 373; see also Stevenson
v. Carroll, 495 F.3d 62, 68 (3d Cir. 2007)(quoting
Rapier v. Harris, 172 F.3d 999, 1005 (7th Cir. 1999)(a
given restriction imposed on an inmate “amounts to
punishment when there is a showing of express intent to
punish on the part of the detention facility officials,
when the restriction or condition is not rationally
related to a legitimate non-punitive government purpose,
or when the restriction is excessive in light of that
Consequently, after screening the amended
complaint, the court on April 4, 2016, based on the
reasoning set forth in the court’s memorandum of
February 19, 2016, dismissed without further leave to
file a second amended complaint the claims against
Commissioner Haste, the Dauphin County Prison Board,
Sergeant Adams and the “John Doe” defendants. (Doc. 30.)
However, the court permitted McClure’s Fourteenth
Amendment due process claims2 against Deputy Warden
Carroll and Lieutenant Hostetter to proceed.
McClure’s other claims were dismissed and Defendants
Carroll and Hostetter were directed to file an answer to
the amended complaint or other responsive pleading
within 30 days.
On May 4, 2016, the remaining Defendants Carroll
and Hostetter filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. (Doc. 31.)
A brief in support of the motion
was filed on May 18, 2016. (Doc. 32.)
essentially mirrors the brief which they filed in
support of the first motion to dismiss and raises no
The court discerns no reason to
revisit its decision that the amended complaint
adequately stated a due process claim against Defendants
The due process claims related to the misconduct
proceedings after which the mattress restriction was
Carroll and Hostetter and, consequently, their motion to
dismiss will be denied.
ACCORDINGLY, this 8th day of February, 2017, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The motion to dismiss the amended complaint
(Doc. 31) filed by Defendants Carroll and Hostetter is
Within 30 days of the date of this order
Defendants Carroll and Hostetter shall file an answer to
the amended complaint.
All discovery shall be completed within 120
days of the date of this order.
Any further dispositive motions shall be
filed within 30 days of the close of discovery.
McClure’s motion to compel discovery (Doc.
39) is DENIED as premature.3
If McClure appropriately submitted discovery
requests to Defendants Carroll and Hostetter, those
Defendants shall answer those requests or interpose
appropriate objections thereto in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of
Court. If McClure is not satisfied with the response to
his discovery requests, he may then at that point file
a motion to compel accompanied by a supporting brief.
The motion to stay discovery (Doc. 43) filed
by Defendants Carroll and Hostetter is DENIED.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
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?