DEVENSHIRE v. SCHOUPPE
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 24 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendant Warden Willie Schouppe. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days in which to file a notice of appeal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on November 29, 2016. (kcc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LAWRENCE DEVENSHIRE, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN WILLIE SCHOUPPE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-01197
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
ECF No. 24
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is a Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings filed by Defendant
Willie Schouppe, Warden of the Beaver County Jail. (ECF No. 24.) For the following reasons,
the Motion will be granted.
I.
Procedural Background and Allegations
Plaintiff, Lawrence Devenshire, Sr. (“Plaintiff”), a former inmate at the Beaver County
Jail, initiated the instant prisoner civil rights action on September 15, 2015, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a violation of his equal
protection rights when he was punished for failing to fill out a work release application while a
white inmate with the same set of circumstances was not punished. (ECF No. 3, p. 2.) Plaintiff
also alleges a claim of sexual assault based on having to be strip searched after returning from a
job interview outside the jail. (ECF No. 3, p. 5.) Plaintiff claims that he was made to shake his
genitals in front of a camera while female correctional officers watched. Id.
1
At an initial Case Management Conference held on March 28, 2016, Plaintiff agreed to
withdraw his equal protection claim stemming from being punished for violation of the work
release program. (ECF No. 18.) The Court dismissed that claim.
Defendant Willie Schouppe filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
regarding the remaining claim on September 26, 2016. (ECF No. 24.)
II.
Standard of Review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), a party may move for judgment on the
pleadings after the pleadings are closed but within such time as to not delay the trial. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(c). Judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) may be granted “only if, viewing all
the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, no material issue of fact remains and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Knepper v. Rite Aid Corp., 675
F.3d 249, 257 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir.
2008)). “A motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the defense that the plaintiff has
failed to state a claim is analyzed under the same standards that apply to a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion.” Revell v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 598 F.3d 128, 134 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Turbe v.
Gov’t of the Virgin Islands, 938 F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991)). Thus, in this regard the standard
of review is identical to that of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Turbe, 938 F.2d at 428 (citations omitted). The only notable difference is that a court,
for a motion on the pleadings, may review not only the complaint but also the answer and written
instruments attached to the pleadings. Brautigam v. Fraley, 684 F. Supp. 2d 589, 591-92 (M.D.
Pa. 201). Despite this difference, courts in this circuit have consistently stated that the
distinction between the two standards is “merely semantic.” Christy v. We The People Forms &
2
Serv. Ctrs., 213 F.R.D. 235, 238 (D. N.J. 2003); see Smith v. City of Phila., 345 F. Supp. 2d 482,
485 (E.D. Pa. 2004).
III.
Discussion
In order to establish a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff “must demonstrate a violation of a
right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States and that the alleged
deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Kneipp v. Tedder, 95
F.3d 1199, 1204 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141 (3d
Cir. 1995)). The Supreme Court has found that visual body-cavity searches of pretrial detainees
following contact visits do not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. Bell v. Wolfish, 441
U.S. 520, 558 (1979). Balancing the legitimate security interests of the detention center against
the inmate’s privacy interests, such searches are not unreasonable. Id. The test of reasonableness
requires that courts consider the scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is
conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in which it is conducted. Id. at 559.
“Correctional officials have a significant interest in conducting a thorough search as a standard
part of the intake process.” Florence v. Bd. Of Chosen Freeholders of Cty. Of Burlington, 132 S.
Ct. 1510, 1518 (2012). “Detecting contraband concealed by new detainees…is a most serious
responsibility.” Id. at 1519.
It is well within the legitimate security interests of the Beaver County Jail to strip search
Plaintiff as he returned from a job interview outside the prison. The Court in Florence was
concerned, inter alia, with contraband that may be brought into the prison from the outside by a
new inmate. The interests of a detention facility to ensure that an inmate who has been outside
the facility does not re-enter with contraband is analogous.
3
The inquiry then becomes whether having Plaintiff face a video camera observed by
female correctional officers while being strip-searched renders the strip-search unreasonable.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has yet to decide a case featuring this
particular fact pattern, where a detainee is strip searched while being watched on camera by
opposite-sex correctional officers. However, the reasoning found in an Eighth Circuit case is
illuminating for the purposes of this case. The court in that instance found that surveillance of
male prisoners by female guards at a Nebraska state penitentiary, when done on the same basis
as surveillance of prisoners by male guards, was not unreasonable and did not violate any
privacy interests of the prisoners. Timm v. Gunter, 917 F. 2d 1093, 1102 (8th Cir. 1990). The
Eighth Circuit pointed out that visual surveillance is an essential factor in maintaining prison
security. Id. at 1101. It looked at trial testimony that showed frequent inmate assaults against
staff members of the prison as well as against other inmates. Id. The court concluded that
whatever minimal intrusions on an inmate’s privacy resulting from such surveillance are
outweighed by the institution’s concern for safety and also by equal employment opportunities.
Id. at 1102. See also Illes v. Beard, 12-cv-0964, 2013 WL 2285565, at *6 (M.D. Pa. May 23,
2013) (granting Motion to Dismiss on claim that the plaintiff’s constitutional privacy rights were
violated when female staff could see him showering.) In this instance, it is clear that the jail’s
interest in maintaining security via video surveillance, whether monitored by male or female
correctional officers, outweighs Plaintiff’s privacy interests. As such, Plaintiff has failed to
allege any constitutional violations.
Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts that show that Defendant Warden
Willie Schouppe was personally involved in any alleged wrong doing. “An individual
government defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged
4
wrongdoing; liability cannot be predicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior.
Personal involvement can be shown through allegations of personal direction or of actual
knowledge and acquiescence.” Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2005). Here,
Plaintiff has failed to allege in what way, if any, Warden Schouppe was involved in the stripsearch and video surveillance episode on which his claim is based.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 24) filed
by Defendant Willie Schouppe will be granted. A separate Order will issue.
Dated: November 29, 2016.
/s/ Lisa Pupo Lenihan
Lisa Pupo Lenihan
United States Magistrate Judge
cc: Lawrence Devenshire, Sr.
145 Orchard St.
Aliquippa, PA 15001
Pro Se
Counsels of record
Via CM/ECF Electronic Mail
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LAWRENCE DEVENSHIRE, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN WILLIE SCHOUPPE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-01197-LPL
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of November, 2016,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed
by Defendant Warden Willie Schouppe (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this case CLOSED.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by
Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
/s/ Lisa Pupo Lenihan
Lisa Pupo Lenihan
United States Magistrate Judge
cc: Lawrence Devenshire, Sr.
145 Orchard St.
Aliquippa, PA 15001
Pro Se
Counsels of record
Via CM/ECF Electronic Mail
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?