Opinion
Civil Action No. 2: 18-cv-1447
07-29-2019
DAROLD PALMORE, Plaintiff, v. CLARION COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
United States District Judge David Stewart Cercone
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Recommendation
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, with brief in support (ECF Nos. 36 and 37), and Plaintiff's response in opposition (ECF No. 50).
After careful consideration of the parties' submissions, in light of the standards governing motions to dismiss set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 668 (2009), and as articulated in United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit precedent, see, e.g., Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 790 (3d Cir 2016), and for the following reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the motion be denied.
II. Report
A. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff, Darold Palmore, an individual formerly confined in the Clarion County Corrections, located in Shippendale, PA, filed this putative class action, prisoner civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that the misconduct policy of Clarion County Corrections violated his, and other inmates' procedural rights. Specifically, through his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Clarion County Corrections had a policy and practice that enabled the jail to deduct five dollars ($5.00) from an inmate's account if the inmate was found guilty of a misconduct. As part of the policy, Clarion County Corrections staff did not issue incident statements or facts underlying the misconduct charges. Rather, only a Charge List was issued, which was devoid of facts describing the charges. Plaintiff alleges that with the scant information provided it was impossible for inmates to devise a defense against the charges. Additionally, if found guilty, inmates were not issued written statements that informed them that they were found guilty or what evidence supported that sanction. This, accordingly to Plaintiff, hindered the ability of an inmate to appeal the sanctions. Plaintiff contends that this policy and practice violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
At the time Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit, he was an inmate at Clarion County Corrections. In February 5, 2019, Plaintiff notified the Court that he had been released from Clarion County Corrections. See ECF No. 40, Notice of Change of Address.
Plaintiff is attempting to bring this case on behalf of himself and "[a]ll inmates who received misconducts prior to 5/8/17 as applicable by the statute of limitations." Complaint, at 6, Class Action Statement.
The Complaint indicates that prison staff implemented corrections to their actions, after Plaintiff filed a grievance about the practice. See Complaint, ¶V(c)(2).
Named as defendants are Clarion County, its warden, its current and former deputy wardens, four officers in charge, and fourteen rank and file correctional officers. As relief, Plaintiff seeks "money/fees refunded, punitive damages per defendant per misconduct, compensatory damages per defendant per misconduct, nominal damages per defendant per misconduct, [and] any other relief applicable by law." Complaint at 9.
Defendants have filed the instant motion contending that all claims against them should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, to which Plaintiff has responded in opposition. The matter is ripe for disposition.
B. Standard of Review
The applicable inquiry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is well settled. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that a complaint may be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint that merely alleges entitlement to relief, without alleging facts that show entitlement, must be dismissed. See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009). This " 'does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage,' but instead 'simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of' the necessary elements." Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Nevertheless, the court need not accept as true "unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences," Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., 232 F.3d 173, 183-84 (3d Cir. 2000), or the plaintiff's "bald assertions" or "legal conclusions," Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997).
When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court's role is limited to determining whether a plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence in support of his claims. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). The court does not consider whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail. See id. A defendant bears the burden of establishing that a plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim. See Gould Elecs. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 178 (3d Cir. 2000). In short, a motion to dismiss should not be granted if a party alleges facts, which could, if established at trial, entitle him to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563 n.8.
C. Discussion
With these standards in mind, the Court accepts as true the facts as they appear in the Complaint and draws all possible inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Pro se pleadings, however "inartfully pleaded" must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Id. Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, this Court may consider facts and make inferences where it is appropriate.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part: "No state shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ." The protections of the Due Process Clause are triggered only if there is a deprivation of a protected interest in life, liberty, or property. See Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 531 (3d Cir. 2003). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has established that inmates have a property interest in funds held in prison accounts. Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166, 179 (3d Cir. 1997). "Thus, inmates are entitled to due process with respect to any deprivation of this money." Id. (citing Mahers v. Halford, 76 F.3d 951, 954 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1061 (1997)).
Plaintiff appears to be challenging the adequacy of the procedural safeguards made available to inmates in Clarion County Corrections with respect to the imposition of a $5 fee if the inmate is found guilty of a misconduct. He contends that both the pre-deprivation and post-deprivation practices were violative of due process guarantees. The Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged enough to create a plausible due process claim. The Court recognizes that discovery may well reveal that the challenged practice and policy does not give rise to a procedural due process claim, but at this early stage of the litigation, the allegations of the Complaint must be accepted as true and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in Plaintiff's favor.
Additionally, for the same reason, it is recommended that Defendants' request to dismiss the individual defendants be denied. Plaintiff has alleged a policy that was known among all defendants. At this stage, the allegations of the Complaint must be accepted as true and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in Plaintiff's favor.
III. Conclusion
For all the above reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the pending motion to dismiss be denied.
Any party is permitted to file Objections to this Report and Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) and 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, Plaintiff, because he is a non-electronically registered party, must file objections to this Report and Recommendation by August 15, 2019, and Defendants, because they are electronically registered parties, must file objections, if any, by August 12, 2019. The parties are cautioned that failure to file Objections within this timeframe "will waive the right to appeal." Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011).
s/ Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
Chief United States Magistrate Judge cc: DAROLD PALMORE
218 Wood Street
Johnstown, PA 15902
(via U.S. First Class Mail)
All Counsel of Record
(via ECF electronic filing)