Mutschler v. Corby et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Edwin M. Kosik on 9/14/2016. (emksec, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
:
TONY LEE MUTSCHLER,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CORBY,
:
et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________

Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-327

(Judge Kosik)

MEMORANDUM
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections to a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
issued by United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson. For the reasons which follow, we
will adopt the R&R.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Tony Lee Mutschler (“Mutschler”), is an inmate currently incarcerated within
the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”) at the State Correctional Institution
(“SCI”) Coal Township. Mutschler filed this action on February 23, 2016 (Doc. 1), alleging that
Defendant Corby used excessive force against him in July 2014, and that a second, unidentified
lieutenant, failed to intervene. (Doc. 1). Mutschler also names three supervisory defendants,
Superintendent Tritt, Deputy Superintendent Miller, and Captain Downs, alleging that they
participated in, or acquiesced in the conduct of Defendant Corby. He further alleges that these
supervisory Defendants failed to act favorably upon his grievances concerning his allegations of

1

excessive force. (Doc. 1).
Pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s statutory obligations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(3)(2) to
screen the complaint, the Magistrate Judge found that Mutschler failed to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted with respect to the three supervisory Defendants. He recommends
that this Court dismiss the claims against these three supervisory Defendants, without prejudice,
and allow Mutschler to file an amended complaint to attempt to correct the deficiencies noted in
his R&R. (Doc. 10).
On March 29, 2016, Mutschler filed objections to the R&R. (Doc. 13). From what this
Court can discern, Mutschler consents to the dismissal of Defendant Captain Downs from this
action. (Id). He objects, however, to the dismissal of Defendants Superintendent Tritt and
Deputy Superintendent Miller on the basis that it is their custom to disregard inmates’ complaints
and their failure to make reasonable efforts to investigate the complaints of inmates. (Id).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections are filed to a Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge, we
must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objections are made.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989). In
doing so, we may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. Although our review is
de novo, we are permitted to rely upon the Magistrate Judge’s proposed recommendations to the
extent we, in the exercise of sound discretion, deem proper. See United States v. Raddatz, 447
U.S. 667, 676 (1980); see also Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984).

2

III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that while the supervisory Defendants may not have personally
participated, or have been personally involved in the excessive force claim, he argues that they all
personally knew of and acknowledged what was taking place, and are therefore liable as
supervisors.
Personal involvement in the alleged wrongdoing is necessary for the imposition of
liability in a civil rights action. Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2005); Sutton v.
Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236, 249-50 (3d Cir. 2003). Section 1983 liability cannot be predicated solely
on respondeat superior. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d
1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). Individual liability can only be imposed if the state actor played an
“affirmative part” in the alleged misconduct. Chinchello v. Fenton, 805 F.2d 126, 133 (3d Cir.
1986). A supervisory defendant may be liable if he directed, or knew of and acquiesced in, the
deprivation of a plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207-08. Although a
supervisor cannot encourage constitutional violations, a supervisor has “no affirmative
constitutional duty to train, supervise or discipline so as to prevent such conduct.” Id. at 1208
(quoting Brown v. Grabowski, 922 F.2d 1097, 1120 (3d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1218
(1991)).
Additionally, participation in the after-the-fact review of a grievance is not enough to
establish personal involvement. See, e.g. Rode, 845 F.2d at 1208 (finding the filing of a
grievance is not enough to show the actual knowledge necessary for personal involvement);
Brooks v. Beard, 167 F. App’x 923, 925 (3d Cir. 2006)(per curiam)(allegations that prison
officials and administrators responded inappropriately to inmate’s later-filed grievances do not
3

establish the involvement of those officials and administrators in the underlying deprivation);
Burnside v. Moser, 138 F. App’x 4114, 416 (3d Cir. 2005)(per curiam)(failure of prison official
to process administrative grievance did not amount to a constitutional violation or personal
involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation grieved). It has also been found that simply
alleging that an official failed to respond to a letter or request Plaintiff may have sent raising
complaints, is not enough to demonstrate they had the requisite personal involvement. See
Rivera v. Fischer, 655 F. Supp. 2d 235 (W.D.N.Y. 2009)(finding that many courts have held that
merely writing a letter of complaint does not provide personal involvement necessary to maintain
a § 1983 claim).
Upon review of the record, we are in agreement with the Magistrate Judge: Mutschler has
not alleged well-pleaded facts showing that the supervisory defendants, Superintendent Tritt,
Deputy Superintendent Miller, and Captain Downs, had knowledge of and acquiesced in their
subordinates’ alleged violations. Because Plaintiff concedes to the dismissal of Defendant
Captain Downs, we will dismiss him from this action. Further, we will adopt the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation and dismiss supervisory Defendants Superintendent Tritt and Deputy
Superintendent Miller, without prejudice, and allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in
accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s March 10, 2016, Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10).
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, we will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
(Doc. 10). The Court has given reasoned consideration to the portions of the Report to which
there are no objections, and we agree with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. An
appropriate order follows.
4