Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-8823.
May 29, 2003.
MEMORANDUM
This pro se prisoner civil rights action involves Plaintiff's claim that he was sexually assaulted and that Defendants covered up Plaintiff's allegations in violation of his constitutional rights. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be granted. Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction, Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem/Fiduciary, and Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of Counsel will be denied.
I. Background
On November 27, 2002, Plaintiff Anthony Watkins ("Plaintiff"), a pro se state prisoner, after exhausting his administrative remedies, filed this Complaint against Defendants Donald T. Vaughn, Jeffrey A. Beard, Clifford H. O'Hara, Ernest Macon, David DiGuglielmo, Manuel A. Arroyo, Michael A. Lorenzo, Tom Dohman, Bessie Williams, Kevin Price, Captain Terra, Captain Kaysign, Gerald Arasin, William D. Watson, and Mark Goldberg ("Defendants"), all employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. In his Complaint, Plaintiff vaguely alleges that he was sexually assaulted at some point by Defendant Watson, and that on November 28, 2000, he was called to the security department at the State Corrections Institute at Graterford to discuss the alleged sexual assault. (Pl.'s Compl. § V). Plaintiff claims that Defendants covered up his allegations and that their actions violated his constitutional rights. Id. Plaintiff seeks $15 million in damages. Id. § VI.
Plaintiff's Complaint does not state when the alleged sexual assault occurred, but does mention an April 1993 investigation that was a "cover up." (Pl.'s Compl. § V).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff first refers to the date as November 28, 2002, but his Complaint was signed on November 25, 2002, and filed on November 27, 2002. It is apparent from the rest of the Complaint that Plaintiff made a typographical error in his first reference to the date, and that the actual date is November 28, 2000. (Pl.'s Compl. § V).
On February 25, 2003, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, and Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition, which appeared to provide additional information which Defendants' Motion contended was fatally absent from the Complaint. On April 11, 2003, the Court gave Plaintiff twenty (20) days to file an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff did not file an Amended Complaint within the deadline, but did so on May 12, 2003. Nonetheless, the Court will consider it as timely filed.
"A party may not rely on new facts in submissions in response to a motion to dismiss to defeat the motion." Hammond v. City of Philadelphia, No. 00-5082, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10182, at *8 (E.D. Pa. June 29, 2001).
II. Legal Standard and Jurisdiction
When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court may look only to the facts alleged in the complaint and its attachments. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). The Court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Angelastro v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 764 F.2d 939, 944 (3d Cir. 1985). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion will be granted only when it is certain that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved by the plaintiff. Ransom v. Marrazzo, 848 F.2d 398, 401 (3d Cir. 1988).
The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
III. Discussion
It is well settled that prison supervisory personnel cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some showing that they were either directly involved in, or had knowledge of and acquiesced in, the alleged constitutional violations.Hodgin v. Roth, 536 F. Supp. 454, 460 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (citingHampton v. Holmesburg Prison Officials, 546 F.2d 1077, 1082 (3d Cir. 1976)). To state a viable claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must set forth facts in his complaint showing that each named defendant was personally involved in the alleged deprivation of his civil rights. Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). The mere fact that a named defendant is in a supervisory position is not sufficient as "the mere right to control without any control or direction having been exercised and without any failure to supervise is not enough to support § 1983 liability." Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs. of New York City, 436 U.S. 658, 694 n. 58, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).
In the instant case, Plaintiff has not raised any factual allegations against Defendants supporting a constitutional claim. Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendant Watson sexually assaulted him, but he has not identified when that allegedly occurred or if it continued after he informed Defendants. The document filed May 12, 2003 is entitled "Amended Complaint", but neither complies with the Court's explicit Order dated April 11, 2003 that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint "shall state the facts on which Plaintiff relies in chronological order", nor does it comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that a pleading contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Instead, the Amended Complaint is unintelligible and adds nothing of substance to the legally insufficient original Complaint. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
IV. Motion for Injunction
In ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court must consider the following four factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will prevail on the merits; (2) the extent to which the moving party is irreparably harmed; (3) the extent to which the non-moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is issued; and (4) the public interest. ATT Co. v. Winback and Conserve Program. Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1427 (3d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1103, 115 S.Ct. 1838, 131 L.Ed.2d 757 (1995)). Issuing a preliminary injunction is an "`extraordinary remedy' and should be restricted to `limited circumstances.'" Moscony v. Quaker Farms, LP, No. CIV.A.00-2285, 2000 WL 1801853, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2000) (quoting Instant Air Freight Co. v. C.F. Air Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d 797, 800 (3d Cir. 1989)). A district court should endeavor to balance these four factors to determine whether an injunction should issue. See BP Chemical Ltd. v. Formosa Chemical Fibre Corp., 229 F.3d 254, 263 (3d Cir. 2000). All four factors must weigh in favor of granting the preliminary injunction. See Pappan Enter., Inc. v. Hardee's Food Sys., Inc., 143 F.3d 800, 803 (3d Cir. 1998). The moving party clearly bears the burden to prove that all elements required for a preliminary injunction are met. See Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 475, 486 (3d Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff initially filed a Motion for Injunction without a Certificate of Service or an accompanying Memorandum of Law, as required by Local Civil Rule 7.1(c). In compliance with the Court's Order directing him to serve Defendants with a copy of the Motion and to file a Certificate of Service, Plaintiff filed an identical Motion for Injunction on March 18, 2003. Plaintiff s Motion, unaccompanied by a Memorandum of Law, states:
A motion asking for the courts for protection, against Graterfird [sic] Institution staff, to be free from threats, harassment [sic] by the following practices:
1. Illeegal [sic] and unnecessary cell searches.
2. No unreasonable mail searches or strip searches.
3. Have all legal mail opened in front of myself.
4. No staff threats, and harassment.
5. No transfer due to his law suit.
(Pl.'s Mot. Inj.).
Plaintiff has not satisfied any of the four factors necessary for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. First, it is not likely that he would prevail on the merits based on these bare assertions. Second, Plaintiff has not shown how he would be irreparably harmed if injunctive relief were not granted. Third, since all prisoners are subject to random cell searches and possible strip searches, all prisoners' mail is opened outside their presence, and all prisoners may be transferred at any time, granting the injunction would result in even greater harm to Defendants as it would interfere with their administration of the prison system. Fourth, there is no showing that the public interest would be served by granting injunctive relief. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction will be denied.
V. Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem/Fiduciary
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) provides:
Whenever an infant or incompetent person has a representative, such as a general guardian, committee, conservator, or other like fiduciary, the representative may sue or defend on behalf of the infant or incompetent person. An infant or incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant or incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action or shall make such other order as it deems proper for the protection of the infant or incompetent person.
Plaintiff initially filed a Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem/Fiduciary without a Certificate of Service or an accompanying Memorandum of Law, as required by Local Civil Rule 7.1(c). In compliance with the Court's Order directing him to serve Defendants with a copy of the Motion and to file a Certificate of Service, Plaintiff filed an identical Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem/Fiduciary on March 18, 2003.
In his Motion, unaccompanied by a Memorandum of Law, Plaintiff states the following:
My ability to receive and evaluate information effectively and communicate decisions is impaired to such a significant extent that I am unable to manage legal affairs or to meet the essential requirements for physical health, due to my recent development of diabetes or sugar diabetic, in which I take insulin shots twice daily. As a result of the insulin shots, my eyesight has diminished to such a degree that I'm considered legally blind. Therefor [sic] it's next to impossible for me to continue to defend this action in which I started.
(Pl.'s Mot. Appointment Guardian Ad Litem/Fiduciary).
Plaintiff is not an infant, and although he alleges that his health is failing, Plaintiff has not made any showing that he is unable to handle his affairs. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem/Fiduciary will be denied.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be granted. Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction and Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem/Fiduciary will be denied. Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of Counsel will be denied.
An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of May, 2003, in consideration of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order dated April 11, 2003 giving him twenty (20) days to file an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 18), and in consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction, Plaintiff s Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem/Fiduciary, and Defendants' responses thereto, and Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of Counsel, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED;
3. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem/Fiduciary (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED;
4. Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.