Opinion
Civil Action 2:22-cv-720
01-05-2024
JAMES A. PALUCH, JR., Plaintiff, v. GEORGE LITTLE, et al. Defendants.
Judge Cathy Bissoon
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICIA L. DODGE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the Complaint be dismissed in part in accordance with the screening provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
II. Report
A. Relevant Procedural History
Plaintiff James A. Paluch, Jr., a prisoner in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”), commenced this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 16, 2022, by filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) He also included a Complaint which named as plaintiffs both Paluch and another prisoner, Willie M. Harris. (ECF No. 1-1.) Because Harris had not paid the filing fee or moved to proceed in forma pauperis, Paluch's motion was denied and the case was administratively closed. (ECF No. 6.)
On November 16, 2022, the Court issued an order directing Harris to either file the paperwork needed to proceed in forma pauperis or a notice of voluntary dismissal. (ECF No. 13.) Two days later, Harris filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis but did not include the required form to authorize payments from his inmate account. (ECF No. 16.) As a result, the Court issued an order on November 21, 2022, directing Harris to file the required form. (ECF No. 17.) Because Harris did not respond, an order was entered on February 14, 2023, to show cause why Harris should not be dismissed from this action for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 20.) After Harris failed to respond, he was dismissed from this action on June 24, 2023. (ECF No. 24.)
This case was then reopened and the Court directed Paluch to file another motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee by August 3, 2023. (ECF No. 25.) The case was administratively closed pending his compliance with this order. Id. Subsequently, the Court granted Paluch an extension until October 3, 2023, to comply. ECF No. 30. He then filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on October 2, 2023 (ECF No. 31) which was granted on October 11, 2023. (ECF No. 33.) At that point, the case was reopened, and the instant Complaint was filed. (ECF No. 34.)
B. Legal Standards
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), this Court is required to screen the complaint filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis and dismiss the action sua sponte if the complaint fails to state a claim or is frivolous or malicious. Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)). In screening complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), this Court utilizes the same standard applied to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). D'Agostino v. CECOM RDEC, 436 Fed. Appx, 70, 72 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999)).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed, in whole or in part, for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any 2 reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)). While “accepting] all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true,” the court “may disregard any legal conclusions.” Id. at 210-11. Further, in considering a motion to dismiss, the court generally considers only the allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and documents that form the basis of a claim when considering the motion to dismiss. Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217, 222 n.3 (3d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Though ‘detailed factual allegations' are not required, a complaint must do more than simply provide ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.'” Davis v. Abington Mem'l Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In sum, the plaintiff “must plead facts sufficient to show that her claim has substantive plausibility.” Johnson v. City of Shelby, Miss., 574 U.S. 10 (2014).
Finally, “[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011) (“The obligation to liberally construe a pro se litigant's pleadings is well-established.”). Additionally, the Court must “apply the relevant legal principle even when the complaint has failed to name it.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 2013). Nevertheless, “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim[,]” and “they cannot flout procedural rules- they must abide by the same rules that apply to all other litigants.” Id. at 245.
C. Analysis
The 20-page Complaint includes substantially more than the “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Among other things, it includes more than five pages of factual allegations relating to numerous incidents that occurred at SCI-Fayette over multiple years.(ECF No. 34 at 14-19.) In some places, the Complaint reads as a class action concerning multiple DOC policies and at other places Paluch asserts alleged wrongs that relate to him individually.
Paluch also alleges that the events at issue apply to “all other DOC-controlled state facilities.” (ECF 34 at 5.)
In addition to Paluch and Harris, the caption of the Complaint also names as plaintiffs “those similarly-situated.” The Complaint also makes multiple references to a “class” both with respect to the claims asserted and the relief requested. As a preliminary matter, it is well established that a pro se inmate like Paluch cannot adequately represent the interests of his fellow prisoners in a class action suit. See generally Alexander v. New Jersey State Parole Bd., 160 Fed.Appx. 249, 250 n.1 (3d Cir. 2005) (“a prisoner proceeding pro se may not seek relief on behalf of his fellow inmates”). Thus, all class action claims asserted by Paluch should be dismissed.
Ultimately, the nature of the claims Paluch raises can be discerned through a review of the “Injuries” section of the Complaint. In that section, Paluch asserts that (1) he has vision problems following the use of O.C. sprayby prison guard Defendant DelSandro; and (2) Defendant George Little, the Secretary of the DOC, has failed to offer protection against privacy violations when prison officials conduct searches of privileged documents outside of an inmate's presence. Id. at 19.
O.C. stands for oleoresin capsicum. O.C. spray is commonly known as pepper spray.
As to the first claim, Paluch alleges that, in early 2021, he engaged in “an exchange of heated words” with DelSandro, after which DelSandro entered Paluch's cell. Id. at 16. After more heated words, Paluch ordered DelSandro to leave the cell, but DelSandro refused to do so. Id. When Paluch arose from his bunk and turned his head towards DelSandro, DelSandro sprayed O.C. in Paluch's eyes without warning, immediately blinding him. Id.
These allegations are sufficient to establish a plausible claim for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Brooks v. Kyler, 204 F.3d 102, 106 (3d Cir. 2000) (“After conviction, the Eighth Amendment serves as the primary source of substantive protection in cases when an inmate challenges a prison official's use of force as excessive and unjustified.”).
As for the second claim, concerning the alleged lack of protection against privacy violations stemming from officials searching privileged documents outside of an inmate's presence, Paluch fails to allege any facts showing that such a search of documents belonging to him was performed.Accordingly, he has failed to establish a plausible claim against Little. As such, this claim should be dismissed.
Paluch does allege multiple instances in which his personal property was damaged by SCI-Fayette personnel, either through malice or negligence. ECF No. 34 at 14-17. Paluch is litigating a claim related to these allegations in another action before this Court, Paluch v. Lewis, et al., Civ. A. No. 2:21-cv-1564. Therein, he asserts that DC-ADM 203, DC-ADM 815 and “6.3.1 ‘Facility Security' Policy and Procedures” violate Pennsylvania state regulations, common law, as well as the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in that they are “too ambiguous,” permitting abuse and failing to provide adequate protection against theft, undue harassment, retaliation, damage, and destruction. Id. ECF No. 139.
Finally, because Paluch does not assert a claim or an injury allegedly caused by the remaining 14 defendants, all of these defendants should be dismissed from the case.
D. Amendment
The Third Circuit has instructed that if a civil rights complaint is vulnerable to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the Court should permit a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile. Mullin v. Balicki, 875 F.3d 140, 151 (3d Cir. 2017); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). At this juncture, the Court cannot conclude that it would be futile or inequitable to permit Paluch to file an amended complaint to remedy the deficiencies identified herein if he so chooses. If he does not elect to do so, the case should proceed solely with respect to the excessive force claim against DelSandro.
E. Conclusion
For these reasons, it is respectfully recommended that:
1. The claim of excessive force may proceed against Defendant DelSandro;
2. All class action claims should be dismissed;
3. The claim against Defendant Little should be dismissed without prejudice; and
4. Defendants Eric T. Armel, Joseph Trempus, CO1 Cavaliere, Sgt. Tyner, Sgt. Sheetz, Sgt. Ohrman, J. Burns, Helman, Rankin, N. Halkias, Coffman, Polito, B. Twardzik, and J. Thomas should be dismissed from this case without prejudice.
Pursuant to the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Civil Rules, the parties may, within fourteen (14) days, file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Failure to do so will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011).