McIntosh v. Sabol et al
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM For the reasons set forth above, the Court will grant Defendant's motion (Doc. 17) for summary judgment. A separate Order shall issue.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 4/13/17. (jfg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THOMAS SIMEON MCINTOSH,
Plaintiff
Civil No.3: 14-cv-822
(Judge Mariani)
v.
MARY SABOL, et al.,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff, Thomas Mcintosh ("Mcintosh"), an inmate formerly confined at the York
County Prison, in York, Pennsylvania, initiated the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. 1 (Doc. 1). The matter is proceeding via an amended complaint wherein Mcintosh
names facility manager John McCoy as the sole Defendant. (Doc. 11). Presently pending
before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56. (Doc. 17). Mcintosh failed to file a brief in opposition to Defendant's
motion. The motion is deemed ripe for disposition and, for the reasons set forth below, will
be granted.
I.
Summary Judgment Standard of Review
Through summary adjudication, the court may dispose of those claims that do not
In an effort to ascertain the custodial status of Mcintosh, the Court accessed the Vinelink
online inmate locator, which revealed that he has been paroled. Upon entering Mcintosh's offender
identification number, HW5514, into the online inmate locator system, https:/Ivinelink.coml#/search, his
status was returned as: "out of custody...paroled."
I
present a "genuine dispute as to any material fact." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). "As to materiality,
... [o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v. Uberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing the absence
of agenuine issue as to any material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323,106
S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once such a showing has been made, the non-moving
party must offer specific facts contradicting those averred by the movant to establish a
genuine issue of material fact. Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990).
Therefore, the non-moving party may not oppose summary judgment simply on the basis of
the pleadings, or on conclusory statements that a factual issue exists. Anderson, 477 U.S.
at 248. "A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the
assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record ... or showing that the
materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an
adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." FED. R. CIV. P.
56(c)(1)(A)-(8). In evaluating whether summary judgment should be granted, "[t]he court
need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record."
FED.
R. CIV. P. 56(c)(3). "Inferences should be drawn in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party, and where the non-moving party's evidence contradicts the movant's,
2
then the non-movant's must be taken as true." Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am.,
Inc., 974 F.2d 1358,1363 (3d Cir.1992), cerl. denied 507 U.S. 912 (1993).
However, "facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party
only if there is a 'genuine' dispute as to those facts." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127
S. Ct. 1769, 1776, 167 L. Ed. 2d 686 (2007). If a party has carried its burden under the
summary judgment rule,
its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts. Where the record taken as a whole could not
lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine
issue for trial. The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between
the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for
summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of
material fact. When opposing parl:ies tell two different stories, one of which is
blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe
it, acourt should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a
motion for summary judgment.
Id. (internal quotations, citations, and alterations omitted).
II.
Statement of Undisputed Facts2
Local Rule 56.1 requires that a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56 be supported "by a separate, short, and concise statement of the material facts, in numbered
paragraphs, as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried." LOCAL RULE OF
COURT 56.1. A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must file a separate statement of material
facts, responding to the numbered paragraphs set forth in the moving party's statement and identifying
genuine issues for trial. See id. Mcintosh did not file a response to Defendant's statement of material
facts. Accordingly, the Court deems the facts set forth by Defendant to be undisputed. See LOCAL RULE
OF COURT 56.1.
2
3
Mcintosh alleges that he was injured on July 17, 2012, 3 when he slipped and fell due
to a dangerous physical condition at the prison, water that was leaking from the ceiling onto
the steps in the New South B Pod. (Doc. 11, Amended Complaint, ~ 4; Doc. 17-2,
Statement of Material Facts, ~ 10). Mcintosh alleges that Defendant knew of the water
leak, failed to fix the leak, and thus, placed him in danger of harm. (Doc. 11, ~~ 1-2).
Defendant McCoy is the facility manager of the York County Prison. (Doc. 17-2, ~ 1;
Doc. 17-3, Affidavit of John McCoy, ~ 1). As the facility manager, Defendant is responsible
for supervising the maintenance and repair of the prison. (Doc. 17-1, ~ 2; Doc. 17-3, ~ 2).
At all relevant times, a procedure was in place to notify Defendant of any maintenance or
repair needs that were found at the York County Prison. (Doc. 17-2, ~ 3; Doc. 17-3, ~ 3).
The York County Prison has an inmate complaint review system that permits all
inmates to file a written complaint concerning their living conditions, designated as an 801
complaint. (Doc. 17-2, ~ 4; Doc. 17-4, Affidavit of Clair Doll, W3-4). The inmate complaint
review system requires every complaint to be investigated and reviewed by the grievance
coordinators or grievance supervisor. (Doc. 17-2, ~ 5; Doc. 17-4, ~ 5). The inmate has the
right to appeal to the Deputy Warden, the Prison Board Solicitor, and the York County
Prison Board. (Doc. 17-2, ~ 5; Doc. 17-4, ~~ 6-9). All inmate complaints are entered into a
computer system and are part of the inmate's prison records. (Doc. 17-2, ~ 5). If a
3
Prison records provide that the alleged fall occurred on July 14, 2012. See (Doc. 17-4, pp. 6,
10).
4
complaint involves the prison environment, such as a claim of a leaking roof, a staff member
must provide a maintenance request form to the facility maintenance manager, Defendant
McCoy. (Doc. 17-2, 1f6; Doc. 17-3, 1f 4).
Mcintosh was housed in New South B Pod at the York County Prison. (Doc. 17-2, 1f
7). Defendant was not aware of a leaking roof in New South B Pod on or before July 17,
2012. (Doc. 17-2, 1f 11; Doc. 17-3, 1f 8). Prior to July 17, 2012, there were no inmate
complaints regarding a leaking roof in the York County Prison. (Doc. 17-2, 1f 7; Doc. 17-4, 1f
11). Prior to July 17, 2012, Defendant McCoy never received an inmate complaint form, or
any other evidence of any inmate grievance involving a leaking roof in New South BPod.
(Doc. 17-2, 1f1f 9-10; Doc. 17-3, 1f1f 5, 7). Prior to July 17, 2012, there were no staff reports
of a leaking roof in New South BPod, and none of the officers' daily reports documented
any leaks in New South BPod. (Doc. 17-2, 1f1f 9, 10; Doc. 17-3, 1f 7; Doc. 17-4, 1f 12).
Mcintosh allegedly fell in July, 2012. The investigating officer reported the incident
as follows:
On the above date and time [July 14,2012,7:05 a.m.], [a] medical
emergency was called for inmate Simeon Mcintosh, # 64355, who slipped
walking down the steps in New South BPod. Medical responded!:,] situation
is under control.
(Doc. 17-2, 1f 10; Doc. 17-4, p. 6).
As aresult of the fall, Mcintosh alleges that he suffered from two bulging discs in his
back. (Doc. 11, 1f 6). Upon his admission to the York County Prison on April 11, 2012,
5
Mcintosh reported that he suffered from a herniated disc. (Doc. 17-2, ~ 15; Doc. 17-4, ~ 17;
Doc. 17-4, pp. 17-19). Mcintosh's medical records subsequent to the alleged fall in July,
2012 do not indicate that his fall was caused by a leaking roof or that water caused his
alleged fall. (Doc. 17-2, ~ 12; Doc. 17-4, ~ 18). The medical records confirm that Mcintosh
had no visible injuries on his head or back after the alleged fall. (Doc. 17-2, ~ 14; Doc. 17
4, ~ 16; Doc. 17-4, p. 10). On July 24,2012, Mcintosh underwent an x-ray of the lumbar
spine which revealed that there were no fractures. (Doc. 17-4, p. 15). Also on July 24,
2012, Mcintosh underwent an x-ray of the hips which revealed that there was no fracture or
dislocation, with mild degenerative changes. (Doc. 17-4, p. 16). In September 2012,
Mcintosh underwent a CT scan of the pelvis and lumbar spine which revealed no fractures
with very subtle disc bulging and degenerative changes. (Doc. 17-4, p. 13).
In 2009, York County installed anew roof that covered New South B Pod. (Doc. 17
2, ~ 8; Doc. 17-3, ~ 6). The new roof that covered New South BPod had a twenty year
warranty. (Doc. 17-2, ~ 8; Doc. 17-3, ~ 6). The steps at New South B Pod are made with a
skid resistant surface. (Doc. 17-2, ~ 13).
III.
Discussion
Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code offers private citizens a
cause of action for violations of federal law by state officials. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
6
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or
other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,
shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or
other proper proceeding for redress....
Id.; see also Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 284-85 (2002); Kneipp v. Tedder, 95
F.3d 1199, 1204 (3d Cir. 1996). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege "the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must
show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state
law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Defendant seeks an entry of judgment in his favor on the ground that Mcintosh failed
to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 18, pp. 7-13). The Eighth
Amendment protects prison inmates from cruel and unusual punishment. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). However, not all deficiencies and inadequacies in
prison conditions amount to a violation of a prisoner's constitutional rights. Rhodes v.
Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981). To assert an Eighth Amendment conditions of
confinement claim, a prisoner must satisfy both an objective and subjective test. See
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991). Specifically, a prisoner must show that the
alleged deprivation is "sufficiently serious" and that he has been deprived of the "minimal
civilized measure of life's necessities." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. A prisoner must also
7
demonstrate that "he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious
harm" and that prison officials possessed a "sufficiently culpable state of mind" and
demonstrated "deliberate indifference" to his health or safety. Id. However, only "extreme
deprivations" are sufficient to present aclaim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1,8-9 (1992).
Mcintosh alleges that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his health and safety
when he failed to repair a hole in the prison ceiling that leaks water when it rains. (Doc. 11).
As to the objective prong, the Court finds that an occasional leaking roof is not sufficiently
serious to constitute a deprivation of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. See
Allah v. Ricci, 532 F. App'x 48,51 (3d Cir. 2013) (the inmate's cell, which leaked water
when it rained, did not give rise to "extreme deprivations" required for an Eighth Amendment
conditions of confinement claim, where the problem with the rain was not consistent for the
three months the inmate was in the celi, was only a problem on the day it rained and afew
days thereafter, and the inmate failed to allege that he suffered any substantial injury).
As to the subjective prong, Mcintosh has not established that Defendant was
deliberately indifferent to his health or safety. Mcintosh has not provided any evidence that
Defendant was aware of the alleged leak, that it created a potentially hazardous condition
and risk of serious harm, or that Defendant deliberately failed to take appropriate action.
Mere negligence resulting in accident such as Mcintosh's does not rise to the level of a
8
constitutional violation under the Eighth Amendment and, accordingly, is not cognizable in a
§ 1983 action. In Santiago v. Guarini, the inmate alleged that there was leaking water in his
cell, he slipped on the water and suffered injuries. Santiago v. Guarini, 2004 WL 2137822
(E.D. Pa. 2004). The inmate filed a § 1983 action setting forth an Eighth Amendment
conditions of confinement claim, arguing that the warden knew of the water leak in his cell,
failed to order a repair of the leak, and, as a result, the inmate was injured. Id. The Eastern
District found that the inmate failed to establish an Eighth Amendment conditions of
confinement claim and stated as follows:
Although Plaintiff uses the words "deliberate indifference," he has alleged no
facts from which the inference could be drawn that Defendant subjectively
knew of and appreciated a substantial risk with regard to that leak. See
Thomas v. Zinkel, 155 F.Supp.2d 408,414 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (granting
defendants' motion to dismiss where pro se plaintiff "use[d] the constitutional
code words 'deliberate indifference'" but alleged only that prison officials knew
of water leak and should have repaired it); see also Denz v. Clearfield
County, 712 F.Supp. 65, 66 (W.D. Pa. 1989) (granting defendant's motion to
dismiss where prisoner inserted the phrase "deliberate, willful and wanton" but
alleged only that defendant failed to repair his inadequately ventilated cell).
Moreover, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to demonstrate that, indeed, the
water leak posed a substantial risk to his safety. Slippery prison floors are
not objectively serious conditions giving rise to Eighth Amendment protection.
See LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1457 (9th Cir.1993) ("slippery prison
floors ... do not state even an arguable claim for cruel and unusual
punishment") (citation and quotation omitted); Robinson v. Cuyler, 511
F.Supp. 161,163 (E.D. Pa.1981)(holding that a slippery kitchen floor in a
prison is not hazardous enough to merit constitutional protection).... At most,
Plaintiff has successfully alleged that Defendant was negligent, but
"negligence does not transform into a constitutional claim solely because it is
committed under color of state law." Zinkel, 155 F.Supp. at 414 (citing
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06).
9
Santiago v. Guarini, 2004 WL 2137822, *2 (E.D. Pa. 2004).
Similarly, this Court finds that Defendant's conduct, at best, constitutes negligence
and, as such, does not implicate Mcintosh's constitutional rights under § 1983. The
undisputed evidence establishes that Defendant was not aware of the leaking roof and was
not aware that it may have caused a serious risk of harm to Mcintosh. (Doc. 17-3, mr 5, 7).
There is no evidence that any grievances or maintenance repair slips were filed prior to the
alleged fall concerning a leaking roof, and there is no evidence that Defendant had any
contact with a grievance coordinator about such a grievance. (Doc. 17-3, ~~ 5,7,8; Doc.
17-4, ~~ 11, 12, 18). The undisputed evidence further reveals that the stairs in question are
made with a diamond plate skid resistant material, have handrails for safety, and are in a
well-lit area. (Doc. 17-2, ~ 13; Doc. 17-4, ~ 15; Doc. 17-4, pp. 7-9). Additionally, a new roof
with a twenty year warranty was installed over the area where Mcintosh claims that he
slipped and fell. (Doc. 17-2, ~ 8; Doc. 17-3, ~ 6). Moreover, the uncontroverted medical
records provide that Mcintosh suffered no fractures to his lumbar spine or pelvis
subsequent to the alleged fall. (Doc. 17-4, pp. 13-16).
Mcintosh has not presented any evidence to dispute these facts and has not
presented any evidence in support of the allegations in the amended complaint. A party
opposing summary judgment must come forth with "affirmative evidence, beyond the
allegations of the pleadings," in support of its right to relief. Pappas v. City of Lebanon, 331
10
F. Supp. 2d 311,315 (M.D. Pa. 2004); FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). This evidence must be
adequate, as a matter of law, to sustain ajudgment in favor of the non-moving party on the
claims. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250-57; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574,587-89 (1986); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c), (e). The record is
devoid of any such corroborative evidence. Mcintosh has thus failed to establish that the
deprivation alleged was objectively, sufficiently serious, and that Defendant acted with
deliberate indifference to an excessive risk to his health and/or safety as required by
Farmer. Consequently, the Court will enter summary judgment in favor of Defendant with
respect to Mcintosh's Eighth Amendment claim.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will grant Defendant's motion (Doc. 17) for
summary judgment. A separate Order shall issue.
Date: April
J21, 2017
Robert . anani
United States District Judge
11
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?