Thomas v. Duvall et al

Filing 40

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 32 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED IN PART and REJECTED IN PART, consistent with this Order; Additional Defendants' 24 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED; and All Defendants shall Answer Plaintiff's Amended Complaint within 30 days. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 5/2/2018. (See Order for further details.) (jr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

No. 3:16-CV-00451

ANGEL LUIS THOMAS,

(Judge Brann)

Plaintiff.
v.
ANGELA R. DUVALL, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
MAY 2, 2018
Background
1.

On March 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed an eight-count complaint (“Original
Complaint”) against ten defendants (“Original Defendants”).1

2.

On May 10, 2016, the Original Defendants moved to dismiss the Original
Complaint.2

3.

On March 1, 2017, Chief Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab issued a
Report and Recommendation (“First R&R”) recommending that this
Court:
a.

1

ECF No. 1.

2

ECF No. 5.

dismiss one of the Original Defendants with prejudice;

b.

dismiss several of the Original Complaint’s counts for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and
granted Plaintiff leave to amend.3

c.
4.

On July 10, 2017, this Court adopted the First R&R in its entirety. 4

5.

On August 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which:
a.
b.

6.

added additional factual allegations; and
joined three defendants (“Additional Defendants”).5
On August 17, 2017, the Additional Defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.6

7.

On January 29, 2018, Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab issued a Report and
Recommendation (“Second R&R”) recommending that this Court grant in
part, and deny in part, Additional Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.7

Standard of Review
8.

The Additional Defendants did not object to the Second R&R. Therefore,
because there is no clear error on the face of the record,8 this Court will
accept the Second R&R’s conclusions

3

ECF No. 13.

4

ECF No. 18.

5

ECF No. 21.

6

ECF No. 24.

7

ECF No. 32.

a.

that joinder of the Additional Defendants did not exceed the scope
of this Court’s July 10, 2017 Order; and

b.

that Plaintiff’s claims against the Additional Defendants were not
barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

9.

Plaintiff objected to the Second R&R.9 Therefore, this Court must conduct
a de novo review of the Second R&R’s conclusion that his Equal
Protection Clause claims (Counts I and VI) should be dismissed for a
failure to allege “similarly situated” individuals.

Analysis
10.

When bringing a claim under the Equal Protection Clause, a plaintiff must
allege that he was treated differently than other, “similarly situated”
individuals.10

11.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges that the Additional Defendants
violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause by assigning
him and other minority inmates to SCI Huntington, where conditions are
allegedly “antiquated and in deplorable condition.”11

8

Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Inter., Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. March 31,
2010).

9

ECF No. 35.

10

Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, 533 F.3d 183, 203 (3d Cir. 2008).

11

ECF No. 21 ¶¶ 21, 161, 182.

12.

For purposes of an Equal Protection Clause analysis, then, “similarly
situated” individuals would be non-minority inmates assigned to prisons
other than SCI Huntington.

13.

Plaintiff has identified such individuals.12

14.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
a.

the January R&R, ECF No. 32, is ADOPTED IN PART AND
REJECTED IN PART, consistent with this Order;

b.

additional Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 24, is
DENIED; and

c.

all defendants—i.e., Original Defendants and Additional
Defendants—SHALL ANSWER Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
within 30 days of the date of this Order.

BY THE COURT:

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

12

Id. ¶ 57.