Hill v. Bethea et al

Filing 78

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Despite being afforded opportunity to cure the deficiencies outlined here, Plaintiff has submitted an Amended Complaint which still fails to comply with the fair notice requirement of Rule 8 and neglects to adequately allege personal involvement by the named Defendants.' Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be granted. An appropriate order will enter.Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 3/23/16. (cc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HOWARD L. HILL, II,
Plaintiff
CIVIL NO. 3:CV-13-174

v.

J. E. THOMAS, WARDEN, ET AL.,

(Judge Conaboy)

Defendants
------------------------------------~~~~<~'~,~-~.

MEMORANDUM

r l, ~

Background

~

,

Howard L. Hill, II, an inmate presently confined at the
Canaan United States Penitentiary, Waymart, Pennsylvania (USPCanaan) filed this pro se

Bivens1-type civil rights complaint.

Pursuant to this Court's November 5, 2013 Order, an Amended
Complaint (Doc. 18) was submitted. 2

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Bivens stands for the proposition
that "a citizen suffering a compensable injury to a
constitutionally protected interest could invoke the general
federal question jurisdiction of the district court to obtain an
award of monetary damages against the responsible federal
official." Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 504 (1978).
The Order concluded that submission of an amended complaint
was required because it appeared that some claims: (1) were time
barred; (2) were against Defendants not subject to the Court's
personal jurisdiction; (3) were improperly premised on either a
Defendant's supervisory capacity or the handling of administrative
appeals and grievances; and (4) failed to provide fair notice as
they did not describe the specific actions taken by the Defendants
or the dates those actions occurred.
1

~ -~

,

\

Named as Defendants in the Amended Complaint are Regional
Director J. L. Norwood and John Doe #1 of the Northeast Regional
Office of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

The Plaintiff is

also proceeding against the following twenty-five (25) officials
at his former place of confinement, the United States
Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (USP-Lewisburg): Wardens
B. A. Bledsoe and J. E. Thomas; Associate Wardens Donald Hudson,
Krista Bahre, and David Young ; Executive Assistant Andrew
Ciollo; Administrative Remedy Coordinator Nancy Nevil ; Captains
Bradley Trate and F. Entzel; Deputy Captains Sean Snider and B.
Taggert; Case Manager Coordinator John Dunkleburger; Supervisory
Chaplain Boyd Carney; Supervisor of Education Vince Cahill;
Health Services Administrator Steven Brown; Facilities Manager
Ken Neuhard; Chief Psychologist Lawrence Karpen ; Safety Manager
Ronald Hicks; Unit Managers John Adami and David Brewer; Doctor
Kevin Pigos ; Mid Level Practitioner Francis Fasciana;
Psychologist Kent Cannon; and Chief Pharmacist John Doe # 2.
Plaintiff generally contends that the conditions of his
previous confinement within the Special Management Unit (SMU) of
USP - Lcwisburg were unconstitutional and that the DefendanLs
approved of those conditions.
constitutional violations:

Hill lists the following alleged

(1) he was housed in an overcrowded

cell with a cell mate ; (2) the cell lacked an emergency response

2

call button;

(3) he had severely limited human contact;

ff was housed with prisoners of

Pl

ferences, and national

fferent races, sexual

ies and individuals who were mental

ill and had different custody classifications;
decontaminate cell a

(4)

use of chemical

(5) failure to
s against prior

occupant; and (6) his cell window was blocked by a piece of
There are no factual details provided with respect to
any

the above claims.
Plaintiff also sets forth a list of the

additional constitutional violations:

(1) den

lowing
1 of protective

custody; (2) failure to curtail inmate on
f

assaults;

lure to curtail staff on inmate assaults;
llance cameras on the back stairway;

(3)

(4) lack of

(5) subjected to

excessive force during a suicide attempt; 3 (6) lack of adequate
recreation;

(7) placement in recreation cages with gang or

geographic group members;

(8) lack of adequate cleaning

suppl

; (9) failure to provide sufficient cleaning equipment;

(10) f

lure to provide pest fumigation;

in

showers;

(11)

f

(12) failure to remove lead paint;

mold, and fungus in cell toilet and sink;

This allegation
subject of a second civil
3:13 2442 which filed with
not be allowed to proceed.

plumbing

(13) rust,

(14) failure to

to be the same claim which was the
action,
, Civil No.
s Court by Plaintiff and as such will
3

inst

1 air conditioning;

ating system;

(15) excess

heat;

(16) inadequate

(16) excessive cold temperature;

food;

(18) unsanitary food delivery;

trays;

(20) inadequate ventilation;

asbestos airborne particles;

(17) inadequate

(19) bacteria on food
(21) subjected to dust and

(22) exposure to chemical

agents;(23) denial of proper medical and mental

lth care;

(23) failure to provide confidential and proper assessments from
medical and mental health staffs; and (24) untimely dispensation
of medications. 4

Once again the Plaintiff does not provide any

supporting factual details regarding these allegations.

The

Amended Complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief as
damages.

well as compensatory and puni

Presently pending is Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Doc. 52.

The opposed motion is ripe for consideration.

Discussion

Defendants claim ent
grounds that:

lement to entry of dismissal on t

(I) the Amended Complaint

adequate notice of his claims;
fail to sufficient
rights;

ils to provide

(2) Hill's nonspe

allege a violation of

fic assertions

s constitutional

(3) the amended complaint fails to allege personal

involvement by any Defendant in any alleged constitutional

Plaintiff indicates that he suf
from depression,
paranoia, and borderline personality disorder.
See id. at ~ 47.
4

deprivation; and (4) Defendants are entitled to qualified
immunity.

See Doc. 53, p. 2.

Standard of Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the
dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

When ruling on a motion to dismiss under

Rule 12(b) (6), the court must "accept as true all factual
allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that
can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff."

Kanter v. Barella, 489 F.3d 170,

177 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 350
(3d Cir. 2005)).

A plaintiff must present facts that, if true,

demonstrate a plausible right to relief.

See Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a) (stating that the complaint should include "a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

1S

entitled to relief"); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555

(2007).

This requirement "calls for enough facts to raise a

reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of"
the necessary elements of the plaintiff's cause of action.
at 556.

Id.

A complaint must contain "more than an unadorned, the­

defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 , 678

(2009). "Threadbare recitals of the elements

of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do

5

not suffice." rd.

Legal conclusions must be supported by

factual allegations and the complaint must state a plausible
claim for reI

f.

See id. at 679.

"Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all
the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in
fact)."

Twombly, at 555.

The reviewing court must determine

whether the complaint "contain[s] either

rect or inferential

allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to
sustain recovery under some

able legal theory."

. at 562;

see also Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d
Cir. 2008)(in order to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff
must al

in his complaint "enough facts to raise a reasonable

expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary
element [sJ" of a particular cause of action).
se pleadings are to

Additionally, pro

construed liberally, Haines v. Kerner,

404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
Fair Notice

The in it

argument raised by Defendants is that the

Amended Complaint fails to provide adequate notice of
Plaintiff's claims.

Doc. 53, p. 14.

They assert that "the

allegations of the Amended Complaint are vague and general in
nature, containing no details whatsoever regarding, dates,

6

times, places or individuals involved."
ously discussed by

As

at p. 16.

s Court's November 5, 2013

Order, a pro se litigant must comply with the Federal Rules of
Doc. 15.

Civil Procedure.

8 requires that a compla

Federal Rule of C

conta

1 Procedure

a short and plain statement

setting forth (1) the grounds upon which the court's
jurisdiction rests,

(2) the claim showing that the pleader

1S

entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief
sought by the pleader.
In order to comply with Rule 8, a civil rights complaint
must contain at
identifying

t a modicum of factual specificity,
particular conduct of the defendant that

1S

alleged to have harmed the plaintiff, so that a defendant has
adequate notice to frame an answer.
The united States Supreme Court in Leatherman v. Tarrant
County Narcotics Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993), explained that
although it is improper to apply heightened pleading standards
to c

1 rights actions, a c

1 rights complaint must comply

h the liberal system of 'notice pleading' set up by the
Federal Rules."

Id. at 167.

A civil rights complaint compl

with this standard if it alleges the conduct violating the
plaintiff's rights, the

and the place of that conduct, and

the identity of the responsible officials.
Under even the most liberal construction and despite the
7

prior

truction

ded by this Court's November 5, 2013,

Hill's Amended Complaint does not comply with Rule 8.
upon a careful review of the Amended Compl

I

Based

this Court

agrees with Defendants' observation that there are "no details
whatsoever regarding dates, times, p
involved."

s or individuals

See Doc. 53, p. 16.

Once again all of the PIa

iff's claims are set forth

vague, general fashion and they do not descr

a

any specif

actions taken by any of the named Defendants or the dates when
those actions purportedly took place. s

As such, the pleading

requirements of Twombly and Iqbal have not been satisfied.
given the liberal treatment afforded to

se filings,

Even

Hill's

mere listing of alleged violation after violation is simply
insufficient especially when considering that twenty-five (25)
prison officials are named as Defendants.
with Defendants' argument that they
notice of p

ntiff's cl

This Court agrees
not

given fair

and the concise grounds upon which

they rest.
Furthermore, this Court also concurs that due to the
vagueness of

Plaintiff's all

, the Amended Compla

fails to set forth viable claims of excess

force, deliberate

In this regard, it is noted that when addressing conditions
of confinement claim, a factor which must be considered is the
duration of the purported deprivations.
8

indifference to
co

s medical needs, and unconstitutional

tions of confinement.

For instance, Hill's sparse cIa

of

being subjected to excessive force during a suicide
wholly devoid of any factual details and as such
satis

is
Is to

even a most liberal application of the notice pleading
of Rule 8(a).

PI

In opposition to the pending motion,

ff has submitted declarations and affidavits from

SMU

isoners.

However, those filings are irrelevant to

issue of whether a sufficient Amended Complaint has
s

It

llow

so noted that although this Court's

2013,

5,

, specifically forewarned Plaintiff of the

requ

fi

s of Rule 8, the need to describe the specif
by Defendants and the dates when those actions

actions

allegedly occurred,6 and offered him the opportunity to correct
those

f

iencies via submission of an amended compl

an Amended Complaint which once again just provides a

has fi

of alleged constitutional violations.

general 1
for di

nt, Hill

st

ssal will be granted.

Personal Involvement

De
suffic
Defendants

also argue that the Amended Complaint fails to
ly allege personal involvement by any of the
any alleged constitutional deprivation.

Doc. 15, pp. 9-10.
9

Doc.

53, p. 24.
Included among the named Defendants are two officials of
the Northeast Regional Office of the BOP, two Wardens, three
Associate Wardens, a Grievance Coordinator, and an Executive
Assistant of USP-Lewisburg.

It appears that Hill may be

attempting to establish liability against those officials and
perhaps other Defendants based upon either their supervisory
positions within the BOP/USP-Lewisburg or their handling of his
administrative grievances and appeals.
As previously discussed by

s Court's November 5, 2013

Order, a prerequisite for a viable civil rights claim is that a
defendant directed, or knew of and acquiesced in, the
deprivation of his constitutional rights.
F.2d 768, 771 (3d Cir. 1990).
requirement.

Gay v. petsock, 917

This is the personal involvement

Federal civil rights claims brought under

cannot be premised on a theory of respondeat superior.
Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988).

§

1983

Rode v.

Rather, each

named defendant must be shown, via the complaint's allegations,
to have been personally involved in the events or occurrences
which underl

a claim.

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976); Hampton v. Holmesburg Prison Officials, 546 F.2d 1077
(3d Cir. 1976).

As explained in

A defendant in a civil rights action must have
personal involvement
the alleged wrongs.
[p]ersonal involvement can be shown through
10

allegations of personal direction or of actual
knowledge and acquiescence.
Allegations of
participation or actual knowledge and
acquiescence, however, must be made with
appropriate particularity.
Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207.
Inmates also do not have a constitutional right to a prison
grievance system.

Jones, 433 U.S. at 137-138; Speight v.

Sims, No. 08-2038, 2008 WL 2600723 at *1 (3d. Cir. Jun 30,
2008) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir.
2001))

("~T]he

existence of a prison grievance procedure confers

no liberty interest on a prisoner.") A prisoner's
dissatisfaction with responses to his grievances by correctional
officials does not support a constitutional claim.

See

also Alexander v. Gennarini, 144 Fed. Appx. 924, 925 (3d Cir.
2005) (involvement in post-incident grievance process not a basis
for

§

1983 liability); Pryor-El v. Kelly, 892 F. Supp. 261, 275

(D. D.C. 1995) (because prison grievance procedure does not
confer any substantive constitutional rights upon prison
inmates, the prison officials' failure to comply with grievance
procedure is not actionable).
Accordingly,

Plaintiff's apparent attempts to establish

liability against at least some of the Defendants based solely
upon either their respective supervisory capacities or the
handling of Hill's administrative appeals and grievances is
insufficient.
11

Mootness

Federal courts can only resolve actual cases or
controversies,

u.s.

Const., Art. III,

§

2, and this limitation

subsists "through all stages of federal j
If

Id. see also

cial proceedings.

Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459

(1974) (the adjudicatory power of a federal court depends upon
"the continuing existence of a live and acute controversy)"
(emphasis in original).

An actual controversy must be extant at

all stages of review, not mere
filed."

at the time the complaint is

Id. at n.l0 (citations omitted).

"Past exposure to

illegal conduct is insufficient to sustain a present case or
controversy.

if unaccompanied by continuing, present

adverse effects."
(S.D.N.Y. 1985) (c

Rosenberg v. Meese, 622 F. Supp. 1451, 1462
ing O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495­

96 (1974)); see also Gaeta v. Gerlinski, Civil No. 3:CV-02-465,
slip op. at p. 2 (M.D. Pa. May 17, 2002)

(Vanaskie, C.J.).

An inmate's claim for injunctive and declaratory relief
fails to present a case or controversy once the inmate has been
transferred.

wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1173 (11

Cir.

1985) (citation omitted); see also Carter v. Thompson, 808 F.
Supp. 1548, 1555 (M.D. Fla. 1992).
Plaintiff initiated this action when he was confined at
USP-Lewisburg and his action seeks injunctive and declaratory
relief with respect to the purported SMU conditions at that
12

facility.

Hill is no longer confined at that prison and there

is no indication that Hill will be returned to USP-Lewisburg in
the foreseeable future.

Therefore, the Amended Complaint to the

extent that it seeks injunctive and declaratory relief based
upon conditions which existed during his prior SMU confinement
at USP-Lewisburg is subject to dismissal on the basis of
mootness.
Despite being afforded opportunity to cure the deficiencies
outlined here, Plaintiff has submitted an Amended Complaint
which still fails to comply with the fair notice requirement of
Rule 8 and neglects to adequately allege personal involvement by
the named Defendants.'
be granted.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will

An appropriate order will enter.

CONABOY
United States District
DATED: MARCH~'

~
2015
f

Moreover, as acknowledged by the Plaintiff, the Amended
Complaint has again included claims which Hill has already raised
in other actions pending before this Court.
8
Since it has been determined that the Amended Complaint
fails to allege factually sufficient claims of constitutional
violations, a discussion as to the merits of Defendants' qualified
immunity argument is not warranted.

13