ASHFORD v. HAWKINBERRY et al

Filing 145

In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion entered contemporaneously herewith, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 128 is denied and Defendants' motion for summary judgment 136 is denied in part and granted in part. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 09/26/2017. (bsc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AILEAF ASHFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT HAWKINBERRY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 14-cv-1718
United States Magistrate Judge
Cynthia Reed Eddy

ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2017, after consideration of the Plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 128], the Defendants’ cross- motion for summary
judgment [ECF No. 136], and the attendant briefs, responses, and evidentiary submissions,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment is
DENIED in part and GRANTED in part as follows:
(i) said motion is GRANTED insofar as it relates to: (a) Plaintiff’s §1983 claim against
Defendants Hawkinberry, Richter, Workman and Parker for allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement stemming from Plaintiff’s nonfunctioning
toilet; (b) Plaintiff’s §1983 claim against Defendant Cotton for alleged indifference to
Plaintiff’s safety; (c) Plaintiff’s §1983 claim against Pellis, Parker, and Workman for
alleged retaliatory conduct; (d) Plaintiff’s §1983 civil conspiracy claim against
Hawkinberry, Parker, McKnight, and Coleman predicated on the Defendants’ alleged
interference with grievance investigations and/or efforts to cover-up unconstitutional
conduct; (e) Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim against Richter, Lowther, and Forte
stemming from Plaintiff’s slip and fall in the RHU yard;
(ii) said motion is denied insofar as it relates to: (a) Plaintiff’s §1983 claim against
Defendants Pletcher, DiSalva, Egros, Pellis, Garland, Dongilli, and Friend for
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement stemming from Plaintiff’s
nonfunctioning toilet; (b) Plaintiff’s §1983 claim against Defendants Hawkinberry
and Richter for alleged retaliation in the form of denying yard activity; (c) Plaintiff’s
§1983 claim against Defendant Egros for alleged retaliation in the form of subjecting
Plaintiff to a nonfunctioning toilet; (d) Plaintiff’s §1983 claim against Defendants
Garland, Halley, Newman, McKnight, Pletcher, and Hawkinberry for alleged
1

retaliation in the form of withholding or confiscating Plaintiff’s grievance materials;
(e) Plaintiff’s §1983 claim against Defendant Tanner for alleged retaliation in the
form of withholding Plaintiff’s magazines; and (f) Plaintiff’s §1983 claim against
Hawkinberry for allegedly conspiring to retaliate against Plaintiff by depriving him of
time in the exercise yard.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against
Defendants Hawkinberry and Richter predicated on the alleged denial of exercise will be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915a.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory relief will be
DISMISSED as moot.
To summarize, the following Defendants are dismissed from this case with prejudice: Lt.
Parker, Captain Workman, Lt. Lowther, Ashley Cotton, Brian Coleman, and Captain Forte.

By the Court,
s/Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge
cc:

AILEAF ASHFORD
DZ-2871
SCI Forest
P.O. Box 945
Marienville, PA 16239
via U.S. First Class Mail
Attorney for Defendants
Yana L. Warshafsky, Esq.
via CM/ECF electronic filing

2