Mutschler v. Tritt et al

Filing 45

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The Clerk of Court is directed to reopen this matter. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file and serve an amended complaint adhering to the standards set forth herein. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 5/16/2017. (jn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TONY MUTSCHLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRENDA TRITT, ET AL.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 3:14-CV-1611
(Judge Brann)

ORDER
MAY 16, 2017
Background
Tony Mutschler an inmate presently confined at the State Correctional
Institution, Frackville, Pennsylvania (SCI-Frackville) filed this pro se civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was initially assigned to the
Honorable Edwin M. Kosik of this Court.1 By Order dated October 22, 2014,
Judge Kosik ruled that the standing complaint in this action consists of Documents
1 and 9. See Doc. 10.
Named as Defendants are Secretary John Wetzel and Chief Hearing
Examiner Robin Lewis of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC).

1

Judge Kosik recently assumed inactive status on February 10, 2017 and this matter was reassigned to the undersigned.
1

The Plaintiff was also proceeding against the following SCI-Frackville employees:
Facility Manager Brenda Tritt; Superintendent A. Kovalchik; Hearing Examiner
Sharon Luquis; and Correctional Officers Alsheski and Lynch.
Mutschler initially alleged that his due process rights were violated during
an April 8, 2014 disciplinary hearing because he was denied the right to call
witnesses and present evidence. He also asserted that there were incomplete
records and an incomplete investigation. Furthermore, Plaintiff generally
maintained that if not for the misconduct, he would have been eligible for parole.
Additionally, a supplement (Doc. 9), Plaintiff claimed that he had been subjected
to retaliation and falsification of documents.
Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s action by filing a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. By Memorandum and
Order dated July 17, 2015, Judge Kosik granted the motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff appealed Judge Kosik’s decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. In an Opinion dated April 13, 2017, the Third
Circuit, although agreeing with the determination by Judge Kosik that the
complaint was inadequate, vacated the July 17, 2015 Memorandum and Order and
remanded the matter with instructions to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend
his complaint. See Doc. 42-2.
2

In accordance with the Third Circuit’s directive, Plaintiff will be granted an
opportunity to file an amended complaint stating each claim he wishes to pursue in
a clear and concise manner; to identify all defendant[s]; and to specify the relief he
is seeking. See Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1988). Mutschler’s
amended complaint is limited to those defendants and claims set forth in the
original complaint. The amended complaint should address the issues outlined by
the Third Circuit’s April 13, 2017 Opinion as well as the concerns set forth in
Judge Kosik’s July 17, 2015 Memorandum and Order.
Mutschler is reminded that in order to state a viable § 1983 civil rights claim
he must make a showing that the conduct complained of was committed by a
person acting under color of state law and that said conduct deprived him of a
right, privilege, or immunity secured by the United States Constitution or by a
statute of the United States. See Cohen v. City of Philadelphia, 736 F.2d 81, 83. 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. Monell v.
Department of Social Serv. of the City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694-95 (1978); Gay
v. Petsock, 917 F.2d 768, 771 (3d Cir. 1990); Capone v. Marinelli, 868 F.2d 102,
106 n.7 (3d Cir. 1989). This is regularly referenced as the personal involvement
requirement.
3

Finally, Mutschler is reminded that his amended complaint must be
complete in all respects. It must be a new pleading which stands by itself without
reference to the complaint previously filed. The amended complaint should set
forth the claims in short, concise and legible statements. It should specify which
actions are alleged as to which Defendants.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The Clerk of Court is directed to reopen this matter.

2.

Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff
may file and serve an amended complaint adhering to the
standards set forth herein.2

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

2

Attached to this Order is a form civil rights complaint which this Court routinely provides to
pro se litigants.
4