SCUTELLA v. ERIE COUNTY PRISON et al

Filing 54

ORDER granting 25 Motion to Dismiss construed at Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 47 Motion to Dismiss construed as Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 50 Motion for Joinder; and adopting Report and Recommendations 53 of Magistrate Judge Susan Baxter as the Opinion of this Court. Signed by Judge Maurice B. Cohill on 1/29/2013. (cag)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JHEN SCUTELLA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIE COUNTY PRISON, et aI.,
Respondents.

)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 12-88 Erie
Senior District Judge Maurice B. Cohill
Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Petitioner, Jhen Scutella ("Scutella"), a prisoner formerly incarcerated at the Erie County
Prison of Erie, filed a Complaint [ECF No.6] and later an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 19]
alleging that various defendants violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and retaliated against him for
exercising his First Amendment rights. Namely, the Defendants in the Amended Complaint are
Erie County Prison and its various employees named individually (hereinafter collectively
"ECP"), Wexford Health Services, Inc. ("Wexford"), and Gary Peterson, D.O. ("Peterson").
Also named as Defendants, but never served, were Dan Telega ("Telega"), and three unnamed
individuals identified as "Dr. John Doe", "L.P.N. Jane Doe", and "R.N. Jane Doe".
On August 7, 2012 ECP filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) [ECF No. 25]. On September 4,2012 Wexford filed a Motion to Dismiss
[ECF No. 47]. On November 12,2012 Peterson filed a Motion for Joinder [ECF No. 50] to
Wexford's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 47]. Finally, on November 26,2012 Magistrate Judge
Susan Paradise Baxter issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [ECF No. 53]. To date
no response has been filed by Scutella to any of the Motions or to the R&R.
In her R& R Judge Baxter recommends the following:
1

1. The ECP Motion to Dismiss, which includes its employees named in the Amended
Complaint [ECF No. 25], be treated as a Motion for Summary Judgment, and in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), be granted;
2. Defendant Wexford's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 47] be treated as a Motion for
Summary Judgment, and in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d),
be granted; and
3. Defendant Peterson's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 50] be granted.
The Motions to Dismiss were converted to Motions for Summary Judgment because ECP
and Wexford attached a number of exhibits to their motions and according to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(d), if matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the
court, the motion must be treated at one for Summary Judgment. Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) summary judgment may be granted for failure to state a claim on which relief
can be granted. Summary Judgment is only granted if there is no genuine issue of material fact.
In this case ECP, Wexford, and Peterson argue that The Exhaustion Requirement was not
fulfilled by Scutella. Namely, that Scutella did not complete the administrative review process
for most of his grievances for proper exhaustion before filing a claim with the Court. Scutella
was fully aware of grievance procedure because ECP's Inmate Manual was provided to him at
the time of commitment. An affidavit provided by an ECP employee states the same. Scutella
was requested to respond but as noted earlier did not. Thus, the Scutella did not present any
issue of material fact, and therefore, summary judgment must be granted as to the majority of the
claims.
As for two claims for which the Scutella did exhaust his administrative procedure, the
Court could not find a violation of Scutella' s due process rights either procedurally or
substantively.

2

It is the opinion of this Court that the Amended Complaint as written is deficient in
alleging its claims and Scutella has not pursued the claims though he was given ample time and
notice to do so. Plaintiffs failure to plead his case properly render his claims without merit and
there is no issue of material fact. Summary judgment and dismissal of claims must be granted.
Therefore, the following Order is entered:
~

And now to-wit, this

~ If day of ~

2013, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows:
ECP's and Wexford's Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF Nos. 25 and 47] are
GRANTED. Furthermore, Peterson's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 50] the case is GRANTED.
In addition, the Defendants who were never served in this case (Defendant Telega, "Dr. John
Doe", "L.P.N. Jane Doe", and "R.N. Jane Doe," should all be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 4(m) because they were not served within 120 days of the date(s) they were
named as Defendants in this case. Finally, any pendant state law claims that the Plaintiff
asserted such as medical negligence, emotional and mental distress, official oppression, and
conspiracy are not properly reviewed by this Court, and therefore, are dismissed. See Carnegie
Mellon University, et a1. v. Cohill, 108 S.Ct. 614 (1988). The Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Baxter dated October 16, 2012 [ECF No. 53] is adopted as the Opinion of the
Court. The Clerk shall mark this case CLOSED.

~~~6.Ce~PQ.}r.
Maurice B. Cohill
Senior United States District Court Judge
Western District of Pennsylvania

3