Opinion
3:22-cv-126-KAP
09-07-2022
CODY OAKLEY, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIAN SMITH, WARDEN, CAMBRIA COUNTY PRISON Defendant
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION
Keith A. Pesto, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Oakley is an inmate in the Cambria County Prison. He has filed a complaint on three separate forms, all naming Smith, the Warden at the prison, as the sole defendant. I recommend the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend because it does not state a claim against Smith.
Report
This is filed as a Report and Recommendation because in Burton v. Schamp, 25 F.4th 198 (3d Cir. 2022), the Court of Appeals held that in cases where fewer than all the parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C), as happens when a Magistrate Judge screens complaints before service in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the appropriate procedure is for the Magistrate Judge to issue a report and recommendation to a District Judge who has the authority to final judgment regardless of consent. Accordingly, regardless of any consent or lack thereof by the plaintiff, this format is used because, for judgment to be entered in favor of a defendant who has not filed a consent prior to judgment (because the defendant has not been served and would not be served with a complaint that fails to state a claim), the matter must be assigned to a District Judge.
Since plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2) commands:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that -
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal -
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Also applicable to this case is 28 U.S.C.§ 1915A, which commands that:
(a) Screening.--The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal.--On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Oakley names only the warden (Smith) as defendant. He complains of three episodes. First, on March 16, 2022, Oakley alleges he was released by “The Judge ... with no special conditions,” but was nevertheless not released from prison until March 21, 2022. Oakley does not explain what if any part Smith played in this.
Second, Oakley alleges that on July 23, 2022, “The Jail/Prison” violated its own misconduct policy and suspended his phone privileges for 30 days on the basis of a “faulty misconduct.” Oakley cites the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, but a prison's failure to follow its internal policy does not of itself violate the Fifth or Eighth Amendments, and Oakley does not explain how his rights were violated. Oakley does not allege that other channels of communication were unavailable and does not explain how he was unable to contact his family or legal counsel, or what injury he suffered. Oakley does not explain what if any part Smith played in this.
Third, Oakley alleges that on July 27, 2022, a corrections officer “sexually advanced me verbally with the sought out plan to phycically.” It is not clear what Oakley is describing. As injuries, Oakley alleges “mental duress, sleepless nights, anxiety, depression.” Oakley does not explain what if any part Smith played in this.
The complaint makes no allegations that would support a claim against Smith. Some of the episodes make no allegations that would support a claim against anyone. If Oakley believes that Smith violated his rights he is obliged to allege facts permitting that conclusion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680-81 (2009). Civil rights claims do not imply vicarious or respondeat superior liability. See Monell v. New York City Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978) (municipal employers are liable for deprivation of civil rights caused by their own illegal customs and policies but are not liable for their employees' actions). It is not sufficient that as the warden Smith is in charge of the prison where events occurred: Oakley must describe how Smith personally caused him injury.
The Court of Appeals, in Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir.2002) and similar cases, directs district courts to allow plaintiffs in civil rights cases leave to amend unless that amendment is “futile” or “inequitable.” Amendment of the complaint is permitted.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), the plaintiff can within fourteen days file written objections to my recommendation. In the absence of timely and specific objections, any appeal would be severely hampered or entirely defaulted. See EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error). He can also in the same time file an amended complaint, or file both objections and an amended complaint. If plaintiff does not amend his complaint he should be deemed to be standing on the complaint submitted, and it should be dismissed.