Abdullah v. Seba et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 9/29/14. (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 2 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 3 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 4 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 5 Unpublished Opinion(s))(bs)

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
This decision was reviewed by West editorial staff
and not assigned editorial enhancements.
United States District Court,
M.D. Pennsylvania.
Steven M. HUNTER, Plaintiff
v.
Warden Brian BLEDSOE, et al., Defendants.
Civil No. 1:CV–10–0927.
Aug. 9, 2010.
Steven M. Hunter, Lewisburg, PA, pro se.
MEMORANDUM
WILLIAM W. CALDWELL, District Judge.
I. Introduction
*1 The pro se plaintiff, Steven Hunter, an inmate at
USP–Lewisburg, is confined in the prison's Special
Management Unit (SMU). He makes several constitutional
claims concerning his treatment in the SMU. Plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis, so pursuant to 28
U.S.C.1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), we reviewed his twenty-page
complaint for legal sufficiency. FN1 We have decided that
some claims survive this initial screening, and others fail
to state a legally valid claim for relief. Some of the latter
claims may be viable if Plaintiff provides additional
allegations, so we will grant Plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint on those claims. Still other claims
cannot be saved by amendment, and those will be
dismissed without leave to amend. If Plaintiff does file an
amended complaint, and if he is going to handwrite it, he
must handwrite in a printed fashion rather than use a
cursive style. FN2
FN1. Named in the Complaint are the following
twenty-four defendants: Warden Bledsoe; SIS
Perrin; Lt. Galletia; Counselor Lizardi; Unit
Manager Brewer; the Case Manager
Coordinator; Officer Anderson; the Regional
Director: the Director of the BOP; United States
Attorney General Eric Holder; Associate
Warden, Custody; Associate Warden,
Operations; Case Manager Zearski; Chief
Psychologist; Counselor Shuck; Education
Supervisor; Medical Administrator; Deputy
Captain Snider; Lt. T. Johnson; Officer Kulago;
Officer Hummer; Administrative Remedy
Coordinator USP Lewisburg; and SIS Fosnot.

FN2. Plaintiff's cursive handwriting is almost
impossible to read.
II. Standard of Review
A complaint filed in forma pauperis may be dismissed
if it is determined that the action is frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In
deciding whether the complaint fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, the court employs the
standard used to analyze motions to dismiss under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court must accept as true the
factual allegations in the complaint and construe any
inferences to be drawn from the allegations in the
plaintiff's favor. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515
F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir.2008). A complaint must contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), giving
the defendant “fair notice of what the ... claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081
(2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964–65, 167 L.Ed.2d 929
(2007)). Although detailed factual allegations are not
required, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 93, 127 S.Ct. at 2200, the
complaint has to plead “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at
1974. “[M]ore than labels and conclusions” are required.
Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1964–65.
Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard
than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson,
supra, 551 U.S. at 94, 127 S.Ct. at 2200. Pro se litigants
are to be granted leave to file a curative amended
complaint “even when a plaintiff does not seek leave to
amend,” unless such an amendment would be inequitable
or futile. Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d
Cir.2004).
III. Discussion
A. Plaintiff Fails to State Claims for Denial of Access to
the Administrative Remedy Process
Plaintiff claims that Warden Bledsoe; the Associate
Warden of Programs; the prison's Administrative Remedy
Coordinator; the Regional Director; Unit Manager
Brewer; Counselor Lizardi; and Case Manager Zearski
conspired to deny him access to the prison's administrative
remedy process. (Doc. 19, CM/ECF p. 9). FN3 Plaintiff

© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 2
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 3154963 (M.D.Pa.)
(Cite as: 2010 WL 3154963 (M.D.Pa.))

avers there was no response to more than fifty
administrative remedy requests he made to Counselor
Lizari, Unit Manager Brewer, Warden Bledsoe and others
since June 7, 2010. (Doc. 19, Compl., CM/ECF pp. 9–10).
He also avers that the BOP continues to ignore his
complaints about staff misconduct at USP–Lewisburg,
(id., p. 17), and that the Regional Director acts
unfavorably on his complaints about staff misconduct and
continues to ignore homemade administrative remedy
forms despite being told that prison officials will not
provide Plaintiff any official forms. (Id., p. 17).
FN3. Unless otherwise noted, all citations to the
record reflect the docket number and page
number assigned by the electronic case filing
system (CM/ECF) rather than the page numbers
of the original documents.
*2 These claims fail for two reasons. First, conclusory
and vague allegations will not support a conspiracy claim,
see Tindell v. Beard, 351 F. App'x 591, 594 (3d Cir.2009)
(per curiam) (nonprecedential) (citing Rose v. Bartle, 871
F.2d 331, 366 (3d Cir.1989)); Adams v. Teamsters Local
115, 214 F. App'x 167, 175 (3d Cir.2007)
(nonprecedential), and Plaintiff has presented only
conclusory allegations of conspiracy to deprive him of
access to the administrative remedy process. Second, and
more importantly, prisoners do not, in any event, have a
constitutional right to a prison grievance process. See
Heleva v. Kramer, 214 F. App'x 244, 247 (3d Cir.2007)
(per curiam) (nonprecedential) (citing Massey v. Helman,
259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir.2001)). Therefore, these claims
will be dismissed, and without leave to amend.FN4
FN4. We do note, however, these allegations
would be relevant if the defendants were ever to
present the defense of failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.

has: (1) a history of not having been able to share a cell
with any of about twenty-four other inmates since being in
the SMU; (2) been assaulted by at least three cellmates;
and (3) an extensive history of an antisocial personality
that causes him to act out when celling with another
inmate. (Doc. 19, CM/ECF pp. 10–11).FN5
FN5. Plaintiff also alleges that on August 8,
2009, Lt. Galletia refused Plaintiff's request to
move out of a double cell. (Id., p. 12).
Plaintiff has no constitutional right to a single cell,
Keeling v. Damiter, No. 09–147, 2010 WL 678091, at *6
(M.D.Pa. Feb. 24, 2010), and neither past assaults upon
him by cellmates nor his antisocial personality are valid
bases for this court to require prison officials to give him
single-cell status. That judgment should be left to prison
administrators, who are in the best position to decide his
housing status and whether he can live with any particular
inmate. See Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330, 334 (3d
Cir.2001) (“the task of prison administration is difficult,
and ... courts should afford deference to decisions made by
prison officials, who possess the necessary expertise”);
DeFranco v. Wolfe, 2010 WL 2762968, at *6 (3d
Cir.2010) (nonprecedential) (quoting Rauser ). Thus,
Plaintiff's claim for single-cell status will be dismissed,
and without leave to amend.FN6
FN6. As we read this claim, it is not one seeking
redress for the alleged past assaults by cellmates.
To prevail on such a failure-to-protect claim,
Plaintiff would have to allege facts, not just
conclusions, indicating that the prison official
knew that Plaintiff “face[d] a substantial risk of
serious harm and disregard[ed] that risk” by
placing him with the inmates who assaulted him.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114
S.Ct. 1970, 1984, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); see
also Hamilton v. Leavy, 117 F.3d 742, 746 (3d
Cir.1997).

B. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Single–Cell Status
Plaintiff alleges that Warden Bledsoe; the Associate
Warden of Programs; the Associate Warden of
Operations; and the Associate Warden of Custody have
been deliberately indifferent to his safety by ignoring his
request for single-cell status. In support, Plaintiff avers he

C. Plaintiff Fails to State Claims Based On Verbal
Harassment by Guards
Plaintiff alleges that defendants Lt. Galletia and CO
Kulago on several occasions made racial remarks to him,
or other remarks about him, that sometimes included

© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 3
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 3154963 (M.D.Pa.)
(Cite as: 2010 WL 3154963 (M.D.Pa.))

threats.FN7 Such remarks, if made, are unprofessional and
offensive, but as a matter of law, they do not state a
constitutional claim.
FN7. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the following
remarks were made:

(M.D.Pa. April 21, 2010) (magistrate judge report),
approved, Simmons v. Mallick, 2010 WL 2079857
(M.D.Pa. May 21, 2010) (Caldwell, J.). Hence Plaintiff's
claims based on alleged verbal harassment will be
dismissed, without leave to amend.

1. On May 7, 2009, Kulago threatened to write
a false incident report on Plaintiff. (Doc. 19, p.
14).

D. Plaintiff Fails to State Claims for the Issuance of False
Misconducts

2. On or about July 15, 2009, Lt. Galletia
submitted a written threat, indicating he would
use excessive force on Plaintiff to accompany
the team. (Id., p. 11).
3. On November 11, 2009, Kulago called
Plaintiff “a black rat.” (Id., p. 14).
4. On March 10, 2010, Galletia told Plaintiff
upon delivering an incident report, “I
encourage the officers to write incident reports
on your black ass since you like to file
administrative remedies on staff.” (Id., p. 13).
5. On June 15, 2010, Galletia told an inmate
who had assaulted Plaintiff while Plaintiff was
in hand restraints, “If I knew it was Hunter
being assaulted I would of never have shot you
with the pepper spray you could of whooped
his ass (Hunter) good.” (Id., p. 13).
6. On or about June 19, 2009, Lt. Galletia told
Plaintiff, “I am going to see to it that your
black ass stays in restraints until you turn blue
black.” (Id., p. 11).
Verbal abuse or harassment are not civil-rights
violations, Mimms v. UNICOR, 2010 WL 2747470, at *2
(3d Cir.2010) (per curiam) (nonprecedential), even
harassment that includes threats of violence. See Herder
v. Biesh, No. 09–2470, 2010 WL 2766611, at *4 (M.D.Pa.
July 13, 2010) (Caldwell, J.); MacLean v. Secor, 876
F.Supp. 695, 698–99 (E.D.Pa.1995) (collecting cases);
Wright v. O'Hara, 2002 WL 1870479 at *3 (E.D.Pa.). Nor
is the use of racial slurs, as offensive as they are. Simmons
v. Mallick, No. 10–739, 2010 WL 2079865, at *7–8

*3 Plaintiff alleges that three false incident reports
were filed against him: (1) one on July 17, 2009, by Lt.
Galletia; one on August 8, 2009, by Lt. Galletia for an
alleged assault on that date attempted by Plaintiff on his
cellmate; and (3) one on August 8, 2009, by CO Kulago,
stating he possessed a torn sheet and had attempted to
assault another inmate. (Doc. 19, CM/ECF pp. 11, 13, 14).
A false misconduct charge does not itself qualify as
an Eighth Amendment violation. Booth v. Pence, 354
F.Supp.2d 553, 558–59 (E.D.Pa.2005) (citing Griffin v.
Vaughn, 112 F.3d 703, 709 (3d Cir.1997)). Similarly, no
due process claim is stated when a prisoner alleges that
misconduct charges were fabricated. Smith v. Mensinger,
293 F.3d 641, 653–54 (3d Cir.2002) (due process is
satisfied where an inmate is afforded an opportunity to be
heard and to defend against the allegedly falsified
evidence and groundless misconduct reports).
Accordingly, the three claims based on the allegedly false
incident reports of July 17, 2009, and August 8, 2009, will
be dismissed without leave to amend.
E. Retaliation Claims Based on the Issuance of False
Misconduct Reports
As noted above, a false misconduct report is not in
itself a civil-rights violation, but if it was issued in
retaliation for an inmate's exercise of a constitutional right,
it is actionable. See Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330, 333
(3d Cir.2001). To prevail on a retaliation claim, a prisoner
must show that: (1) he engaged in constitutionally
protected conduct; (2) he suffered some “adverse action”
by prison officials; and (3) there is a causal link between
the exercise of the right and the adverse action. Id. at
333–34.
Plaintiff avers that three false incident reports were
issued for retaliatory reasons. First, on December 7, 2009,
defendant Officer Hummer issued a false misconduct “in

© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 4
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 3154963 (M.D.Pa.)
(Cite as: 2010 WL 3154963 (M.D.Pa.))

retaliation for plaintiff['s] protest[ing]” that he wanted to
“be move[d] to another cell to avoid a cell fight with
plaintiff['s] cellmate ... and/or from plaintiff['s] being
further assaulted by his cellmate ...” (Doc. 19, CM/ECF p.
14). Second, on March 10, 2010, defendant Anderson
wrote a false incident report to retaliate against Plaintiff's
“threat [ ] to file an administrative remedy on Officer
Anderson.” (Id.). Third, on April 14, 2010, defendant Lt.
Johnson issued him a false incident report in retaliation for
“plaintiff['s] refusal to cell with a known gang-related
violent inmate in order to justify placing plaintiff in
ambulatory restraints.” (Id., p. 15).
None of these three reports are actionable as a
retaliation claim because none of them involved Plaintiff's
exercise of a constitutional right. In the December 2009
and April 2010 claims, the allegedly retaliatory conduct
stemmed from Plaintiff's stating that he wanted a different
cellmate. However, as noted, Plaintiff has no
constitutional right to pick his cellmate or to a single cell.
*4 Because both of these claims involve the potential
for an assault from the cellmate, it could be argued that
Plaintiff was invoking his Eighth Amendment right against
suffering serious harm from his jailers, but to make such
a claim Plaintiff would have to allege facts, not just
conclusions, indicating that the prison officials knew at the
relevant time that Plaintiff faced a substantial risk of
serious harm from his cellmates and that they disregarded
that risk by placing him with the cellmates. See note 5
supra. If this was Plaintiff's intent, we will grant him leave
to amend these claims.
The March 2010 claim is closer to the mark because
Plaintiff alleges that Officer Anderson retaliated against
him because Plaintiff threatened to file a grievance against
him. The filing of a grievance by a prisoner is protected by
the First Amendment. Kelly v. York County Prison, 340 F.
App'x 59, 61 (3d Cir.2009) (per curiam)
(nonprecedential); Baker v. Williamson, No. 07–2220,
2010 WL 1816656, at *5 (M.D.Pa. May 5, 2010)
(Caldwell, J.). The difficulty here for Plaintiff is that he
only threatened to file a grievance; he did not actually file
one. Since Plaintiff's conduct did not actually involve the
exercise of a constitutional right, he fails to satisfy the first
element of a retaliation claim, and the March 2010

retaliation claim will be dismissed, without leave to
amend.FN8
FN8. We have been unable to locate any the
Third Circuit cases that hold the mere threat to
file a prison grievance satisfies the first element
of a retaliation claim. In DeFranco v. Wolfe,
2010 WL 2762968 at *6 n. 2 (3d Cir.2010)
(nonprecedential), the Third Circuit bypassed the
issue “whether the mere threat of a lawsuit
against prison officials is a clearly established
constitutional right” because the case could be
decided on the causation prong of a retaliation
claim. See also Bendy v. Ocean County Jail, 341
F. App'x 799, 802 (3d Cir.2009)
(nonprecedential) (assuming, without deciding,
that threatening to file a lawsuit was protected
activity). In Booth v. King, 346 F.Supp.2d 751,
762 (E.D.Pa.2004), the district court held that an
inmate's threat to sue was protected activity, but
the inmate had also alleged that he had been
retaliated against for filing prison grievances, so
the court did not have to consider whether a mere
threat to exercise a constitutional right was
sufficient for a retaliation claim.
F. Claim that Captain Snider Was Racially Motivated in
Failing to Adequately Investigate Hunter's Administrative
Remedy Requests
Plaintiff claims defendant Deputy Captain Snider,
motivated by racism in part, responded to administrative
remedy complaints “without a prompt investigation into
[the] complaints.” (Doc. 19, CM/ECF p. 16). These
allegations fail to state a claim for two reasons. First,
Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts. He must
allege the administrative remedies that defendant Snider
handled in a discriminatory manner, the content of the
grievances, and any facts supporting the allegation of
racial bias. Second, Plaintiff must allege any injury he may
have suffered from how Snider handled the grievances.
We will grant him leave to amend this claim.FN9
FN9. Otherwise, as noted above, since a prisoner
has no constitutional right to a grievance process,
the mere fact that Snider failed to conduct a
prompt investigation into the grievances does not

© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 5
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 3154963 (M.D.Pa.)
(Cite as: 2010 WL 3154963 (M.D.Pa.))

state a claim.
G. Denial of Unlimited Free Postage and Photocopies for
the Indigent Plaintiff
Plaintiff avers that Unit Manager Brewer, Counselor
Shuck, Counselor Lizzardi, the Assistant Warden of
Programs, and Warden Bledsoe refuse to provide him with
postage stamps and ordered him “to repay” for stamps if
they have been provided to him, even though he is
indigent. (Doc. 19, CM/ECF p. 16). Plaintiff avers that
Warden Bledsoe, the Assistant Warden of Programs, the
Education Supervisor, Unit Manager Brewer, and
Counselor Lizzardi “refuse to provide Plaintiff free (no
limited amount) of ... copies of legal cases and related
papers, including this action despite Plaintiff's being
indigent.” (Id., pp. 16–17).
An inmate may be indigent and proceeding pro se but
that does not entitle him to litigate his case without costs
or at the expense of the BOP. In Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d
147, 159 (3d Cir.1993), the Court stated that “[t]here is no
provision in [28 U.S.C. § 1915] for the payment by the
government of the cost of deposition transcripts, or any
other litigation expenses, and no other statute authorizes
courts to commit federal monies for payment of the
necessary expenses in a civil suit brought by an indigent
litigant.” Notably, Plaintiff does not allege that the BOP is
not allowing him to anticipate funds in his prison account
to cover his postage or court-related copying expenses, but
rather that they are making him pay for them at some later
point when there are funds in his prison account. This
claim will be dismissed, and without leave to amend.
H. Ambulatory Restraints
*5 Plaintiff makes the following claims about his
placement in ambulatory restraints. First, on or about June
19, 2009, he was placed in ambulatory restraints and
remained in restraints well over twenty-four hours, until
about June 23, 2009, despite not being disruptive, with
Warden Bledsoe having personal knowledge of his plight.
(Doc. 19, CM/ECF p. 14). Second, on or about August 8,
2009, Plaintiff was placed in ambulatory restraints, then
placed in four-point restraints for no reason, with Warden
Bledsoe having direct knowledge of this. (Id., p. 15).
Third, on or about April 16, 2010, Plaintiff was placed in

ambulatory restraints for more than twenty-four hours by
unknown officers, until April 18, 2010, despite Plaintiff's
conduct not being disruptive. (Id.). Fourth, on or about
April 14 and April 16, 2010, prison officials knowingly
and intentionally placed ambulatory restraints on Plaintiff
in a manner that affected Plaintiff's breathing and blood
circulation. (Id., pp. 15–16).
We conclude that these claims should survive an
initial screening of the complaint.
I. Alleged Assaults
Plaintiff alleges the following assaults. First, since
November 13, 2007, several prison officials have caused
Plaintiff to be assaulted by at least three cellmates. (Doc.
19, CM/ECF p. 8). Second, on June 19, 2009, Lt. Galletia
assaulted Plaintiff while he was in ambulatory restraints by
spitting on him. (Id., p. 11). Third, on August 8, 2009, Lt.
Galletia used excessive force when he used gas and
shot-gun pepper spray on Plaintiff when he refused to
allow his cellmate to have his hand restraints removed,
with the intent to force Galletia to put Plaintiff in another
cell. (Id., p. 12). Fourth, on November 13, 2009, Plaintiff
was assaulted by a cellmate whom Lt. Galletia had placed
with Plaintiff despite Plaintiff's request not to be placed
with this non-compatible inmate. (Id., p. 13).
The first assault claim is deficient because it does not
allege the prison officials involved, the facts supporting
the averment that they caused Plaintiff to be assaulted,
when the assaults occurred, and the names of the cellmates
who assaulted him. The third claim is deficient in failing
to allege facts that show that Lt. Galletia used excessive
force, especially since Plaintiff admits he caused a
confrontation by refusing to allow his cellmate to have his
restraints removed. The fourth claim is also deficient in
failing to allege facts showing that Lt. Gallatia knew or
should have known that the cellmate was
“non-compatible” and that he would assault Plaintiff, as
well as the name of the cellmate. Plaintiff will be granted
leave to amend these claims.
Plaintiff's second claim is also deficient but cannot be
cured by amendment. An assault by spitting is not enough
for an Eighth Amendment claim. See McCullough v.
Miller, No. 06–514, 2008 WL 4361254, at *7 (W.D.Pa.
Sept.24, 2008) (collecting cases), aff'd, 330 F. App'x 330

© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 6
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 3154963 (M.D.Pa.)
(Cite as: 2010 WL 3154963 (M.D.Pa.))

(3d Cir.2009) (per curiam) (nonprecedential); Young v.
Medden, No. 03–5432, 2006 WL 456274, at *21–22
(E.D.Pa. Feb.23, 2006). It is immaterial that Plaintiff was
in ambulatory restraints at the time. This claim will be
dismissed, and without leave to amend.
J. Requests for Transfer to Another Prison or SMU
*6 Plaintiff avers that the Director of the BOP, the
Regional Director, the Attorney General, Warden Bledsoe,
the Associate Warden of Programs, the Associate Warden
of Custody, SIS Perrin, the CMC and the Associate
Warden of Operations have ignored his requests for
transfer to another prison or to another SMU (essentially
the same as a transfer to another prison). Plaintiff alleges
the reason he needs the transfer is protection from a
number of unnamed prison officials at Lewisburg. (Doc.
19, CM/ECF pp. 7–8).
Inmates have no constitutional right to confinement in
any particular prison. Mimms v. UNICOR, 2010 WL
2747470, at *2 (3d Cir.2010) (per curiam)
(nonprecedential). However, as noted above, inmates do
have an Eighth Amendment right to safety. Nonetheless,
these allegations fail to state a claim because they are
conclusory. Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend this
claim by alleging the following: (1) the names of the
prison officials he needs protection from; and (2) a
description of the conduct of these officials (including
time and place) that constituted a threat to his safety.
IV. Conclusion
The following claims will be dismissed without leave
to amend: (1) the claims for denial of access to the
administrative remedy process; (2) the claim for
single-cell status; (3) the claim based on verbal harassment
by the guards; (4) the three claims based on false incident
reports of July 17, 2009, and August 8, 2009; (5) the
March 2010 retaliation claim based on a allegedly false
incident report issued by defendant Anderson: (6) the
claim for denial of unlimited free postage and
photocopies; and (7) the claim that Lt. Gallatia assaulted
Plaintiff on June 19, 2009, by spitting on him.
The following claims will be dismissed but with leave
to amend to make the necessary allegations, as discussed
in the accompanying memorandum: (1) the December

2009 and April 2010 retaliation claims; (2) the claim that
Deputy Captain Snider responded to administrative
remedy complaints in a racist manner; (3) the claim that
since November 13, 2007, several prison officials have
caused Plaintiff to be assaulted by at least three cellmates;
that on August 8, 2009, Lt. Galletia used excessive force
on Plaintiff; and that on November 13, 2009, Plaintiff was
assaulted by a cellmate whom Lt. Galletia had placed with
Plaintiff; and (4) the claim that Plaintiff should have been
transferred for safety reasons.
Plaintiff will be granted twenty-one days to file an
amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to do so, this action
will proceed only on the following claim: that Warden
Bledsoe and unknown defendants unconstitutionally
placed Plaintiff in ambulatory restraints on several
occasions.FN10
FN10. We note that Plaintiff complained about
other conditions in the SMU without saying that
he had been affected by those conditions. We
deal here only with claims of injury to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is advised that the “amended complaint must
be complete in all respects. It must be a new pleading
which stands by itself as an adequate complaint without
reference to the complaint already filed.” Young v.
Keohane, 809 F.Supp. 1185, 1198 (M.D.Pa.1992). Thus,
he must include in his amended complaint his ambulatory
restraint claims even though we found them sufficient for
an initial screening. Further, because Plaintiff's cursive
handwriting is illegible, if Plaintiff handwrites the
amended complaint, Plaintiff must handwrite it in a
printed fashion rather than use a cursive style. If Plaintiff
uses a cursive style, the amended complaint will be
dismissed.
*7 We will issue an appropriate order.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of August, 2010, upon
review of the Complaint (doc. 19) under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), it is ordered that:
1. The following claims are dismissed without leave
to amend: (a) the claims for denial of access to the

© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 7
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 3154963 (M.D.Pa.)
(Cite as: 2010 WL 3154963 (M.D.Pa.))

administrative remedy process; (b) the claim for
single-cell status; (c) the claim based on verbal harassment
by the guards; (d) claims based on false incident reports;
(e) the March 2010 retaliation claim based on a allegedly
false incident report issued by defendant Anderson; (f) the
claim for denial of unlimited free postage and
photocopies; and (g) the claim that Lt. Gallatia assaulted
Plaintiff on June 19, 2009, by spitting on him.
2 The following claims are dismissed but with leave
to amend to make the necessary allegations as discussed in
the accompanying memorandum: (a) the December 2009
and April 2010 retaliation claims; (b) the claim that
Deputy Captain Snider responded to administrative
remedy complaints in a racist manner; (c) the claims that
since November 13, 2007, several prison officials have
caused Plaintiff to be assaulted by at least three cellmates;
that on August 8, 2009, Lt. Galletia used excessive force
on Plaintiff; and that on November 13, 2009, Plaintiff was
assaulted by a cellmate whom Lt. Galletia had placed with
Plaintiff; and (4) the claim that Plaintiff should have been
transferred for safety reasons.
3. Plaintiff is granted twenty-one days to file an
amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to do so, this action
will only proceed on the claim against Warden Bledsoe
and unknown defendants that Plaintiff was
unconstitutionally placed in ambulatory restraints on four
occasions.
4. The amended complaint must be complete in all
respects and must be a new pleading which stands by itself
as an adequate complaint without reference to the
complaint already filed.
5. If Plaintiff handwrites the amended complaint,
Plaintiff must handwrite it in a printed fashion rather than
use a cursive style. If Plaintiff uses a cursive style, the
amended complaint will be dismissed.
M.D.Pa.,2010.
Hunter v. Bledsoe
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 3154963 (M.D.Pa.)
END OF DOCUMENT

© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.