Opinion
Civil Action 20-808
06-16-2023
LAMONT BULLOCK, Plaintiff, v. MIKE HICE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WILLIAM NICHOLSON, STEPHANY WOODS, MARK DIALESANDRA, SUPERINTENDENT ROBERT GILMORE, SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL ZAKEN, TRACEY SHAWLEY, JOHN WETZEL, JOHN MCANANY, DR. SMYTH, JAYAKUMAR, DR. JAY, DR. PARKS, PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT MARK HAMMER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ANGELO, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER W.T. HENRY, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MCCRACKEN, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MASCETTA, PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT FETTERMAN, DR. BAIRD, JOHN POKOL, STANLEY FALOR, CHARLES ROSSI and SAFETY MANAGER, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: ECF NO. 122
MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Lamont Bullock (“Plaintiff') brings this pro se action arising out of allegations that, while incarcerated, he was deliberately exposed to contaminated foods and other harmful substances, and that he was denied proper medical treatment. ECF No. 20.
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute filed by Defendants Dr. Baird, CRNP James Fetterman, PA Mark Hammer, Mike Hice, and Dr. Smyth (“the Medical Defendants”). ECF No. 122. For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that the Motion to Dismiss be granted.
It is further recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Angelo, the Department of Corrections (“DOC”), Mark Dialesandra, Robert Gilmore, W.T. Henry, Mascetta, John McAnany, McCracken, William Nicholson, John Pokol, Charles Rossi, Tracey Shawley, Dorina Varner, John Wetzel, Stephany Woods, and Michael Zaken (the “Corrections Defendants”).
II. REPORT
A. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims against numerous defendants arising out of allegations spanning the course of over 20 years at 8 different correctional institutions.ECF No. 20. Broadly, Plaintiff claims that prison officials poisoned him by feeding him contaminated foods and beverages; used dirty needles to draw blood; and exposed him to harmful odors and dusts. Id. ¶¶ 23-25, 30, 59, 48, 52-56. As a result, Plaintiff alleges that he developed various illnesses. Id. ¶¶ 23, 56, 59.
Plaintiff claims that he was diagnosed with Hepatitis-C and denied treatment as early as 1998. ECF No. 20 ¶¶ 3739. He was incarcerated at the State Correctional Institutions at Huntington, Smithfield, Greene, Pittsburgh, Graterford, Houtzdale, Fayette and Dallas. Id. ¶¶ 23, 35, 62, 67, 69, 70.
Plaintiff claims that his medical records have been fabricated to conceal his illnesses and to falsely indicate that he suffers from paranoid thinking. Id. ¶¶ 31, 33, 36. He has been denied proper treatment, testing and diagnoses for those illnesses. Id. ¶¶ 22, 32-43, 56-64. Plaintiff also claims that the DOC transferred him to various institutions to cover up what happened. He believes that individuals at SCI-Greene are plotting to cause his death. Id. ¶ 152.
Plaintiff began this lawsuit on June 3, 2020, by filing a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Motion”), together with a proposed Complaint. ECF No. 3. After the Court identified certain deficiencies with Plaintiffs filing, he requested multiple extensions of time to cure the deficiencies or submit the requisite filing fee. ECF Nos. 3, 5, 7.
Plaintiff eventually paid the filing fee, and his original Complaint was filed on March 30, 2021. ECF Nos. 15 and 18. The operative Amended Complaint was filed on June 21, 2021. ECF No. 20.
Multiple defendants moved to dismiss, including the Medical Defendants and the Corrections Defendants. ECF Nos. 63 and 77. The undersigned submitted Reports and Recommendations (“R&Rs”), recommending that these two Motions to Dismiss be granted with limited leave to amend. ECF Nos. 102 and 103.
On September 28, 2022, the Court adopted the R&Rs and granted the Motions to Dismiss filed by the Corrections Defendants and Medical Defendants. ECF Nos. 117 and 118. While the Court dismissed certain claims with prejudice, it granted Plaintiff leave to amend as to several of his claims, to the extent he could cure the deficiencies identified in the R&R. The Court instructed as follows.
Mr. Bullock must file any Second Amended Complaint by no later than October 28,2022. Failure to do will result in all his claims being dismissed with prejudice.ECF No. 117 at 2; ECF No. 118 at 2 (emphasis added).
Upon Plaintiffs request, the Court granted him an extension of time until December 27, 2022, to amend his complaint. ECF Nos. 120 and 121. However, Plaintiff did not amend his pleadings by this date.
On March 1, 2023, the Medical Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and Brief in Support. ECF No. 122 and 123. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response to this motion by March 23, 2023. ECF No. 124. Upon Plaintiffs request, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to respond until May 24, 2023. ECF Nos. 125 and 126.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the instant Motion to Dismiss or an amended complaint, as directed. Based on the DOC's online inmate locator, it appears that Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated with the DOC. He has not updated his address of record with the Court.
The inmate locator is available at https://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gOv/#/ (last visited June 16, 2023).
B. DISCUSSION
The Medical Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff s claims based on his failure to prosecute. ECF No. 122. This Court ordered that Plaintiffs claims would be dismissed with prejudice if he did not file an amended complaint by December 27, 2022. Because Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by this date, his claims against the Medical Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss should be granted.
For the same reason, the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs claims against the Corrections Defendants with prejudice. Plaintiff did not file an amended pleading by December 27, 2022, as required.
C. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Court grant the Medical Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 122, and dismiss Plaintiffs claims against the Medical Defendants with prejudice. In addition, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff s claims against the Corrections Defendants with prejudice.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.
Honorable J. Nicholas Ranjan, United States District Judge