Opinion
1:23-CV-216-SPB-RAL
01-22-2024
DAKOTA RAYMOND BRODIE, Plaintiff v. SUPERINTENDENT TOMPSON, et al., Defendants
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, United States District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Recommendation
It is recommended that Plaintiff Dakota Raymond Brodie's claims against Defendants Superintendent Tompson, Medical Admenstrion, Major Zomer, Dept. Zusser, LT. RHU-DTU, Capt RHU-DTU, Syogogy Dept Conslor Roggs, Ms. Jessica, and Ms. Puttmen be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). It is further recommended that each of those Defendants be terminated from the docket.
This matter has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
II. Report
A. Background
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Albion (SCI-Albion), commenced this action by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the Court granted leave for Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 7, the Clerk docketed his Complaint. ECF No. 8. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court has a mandatory obligation to screen his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants CO1 Barth and CO1 Provencher stabbed him in the eye ten times on June 15, 2023, rendering him blind. ECF No. 8 at 4. He avers that unidentified medical care providers at SCI-Albion refused to offer him any treatment for his injury. Id. Although he names a host of other individuals as Defendants, none of them appear to be medical personnel.
As an aside, it is not entirely clear who Plaintiff intended to name as Defendants. The caption of his pleading lists the following individuals: CO1 Provencher, CO1 Barth, Major Zomer, Medical Admenstrion, Zusser, Syogogy Dept Conslor Boggs, Ms. Jessica, Ms. Puttmen, LT. RHU-DTU, Capt RHU-DTU, and Superintendent Tompson. ECF No. 8 at 1. The body of Plaintiff's Complaint lists only five individuals: Suppertendent Tompson, Dept Zusser, Medical Admenstrion, CO1 Barth, and CO1 Provencher. Id. at 3. Complicating matters further, Plaintiff submitted USM-285 service forms for a handful of these individuals as well as several other individuals who are not referenced anywhere in the Complaint. This discrepancy is ultimately immaterial, as the only viable Defendants appear to be those connected to the June 15 assault - Barth, Provencher, and unidentified medical staff.
The remainder of Plaintiff's factual averments are largely incoherent. In the “facts” section of his pleading, he states that “PRC-Dept Suzzer and Tompson Suppertendent refused my legal right to contact conslor of open case - #27-2023 and to address any secirty consern's.” Id. at 4. In the “relief” portion of his Complaint, he states that unidentified individuals “[messed] with my dual right process court perseger's and why now - cant max out on time due credit time taken from Deffant for not showing up to 5-22-23 to Albion Defel Syogogy Dept Ms. Sussun Evanis Dr. Cookiest Ms. Puttmer Ms. Jessica refused Syogogy Med's 6 month all ready or then should taken off 1-C filled false paperwork.” Id. at 4. While it is unclear what incidents these averments are referring to, they do not appear to have any connection to the injuries that Plaintiff sustained on June 15, 2023.
B. Standard for review
Because he is seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 1, Plaintiff is subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).Among other things, that statute requires the Court to dismiss any action in which the Court determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Muchler v. Greenwald, 624 Fed.Appx. 794, 796-97 (3d Cir. 2015). A frivolous complaint is one which is either based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory (such as when a defendant enjoys immunity from suit) or based upon factual contentions which are clearly baseless (such as when the factual scenario described is fanciful or delusional). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). The determination as to whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. D 'Agostino v. CECOMRDEC, 436 Fed.Appx. 70, 72 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999)).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his allegations, “however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972). Moreover, under the liberal pleading rules, during the initial stages of litigation, a district court should construe all allegations in a complaint in favor of the complainant. Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 1997).
C. Analysis
Based on the factual averments outlined above, the Court can discern two potentially viable claims: an excessive force claim against Barth and Provencher based on the alleged assault on June 15, 2023, and a deliberate indifference claim against unidentified medical personnel for refusing to provide treatment after that assault. Should this Report be adopted, the undersigned will issue an order authorizing service as to Barth and Provencher and directing Plaintiff to amend his Complaint within a reasonable time to identify and name the medical providers responsible for denying Plaintiff medical care for his eye injury.
The remaining claims and Defendants are subject to dismissal on numerous grounds. Initially, Plaintiff has failed to identify most of the remaining Defendants with specificity, and many of them are only named in the caption, with no further conduct attributed to them. To state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must plead facts alleging that each defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141 (3d Cir. 1995). See also Evancho v. Fischer, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2006) (when claims implicate multiple defendants, the plaintiff must show that each and every defendant was personally involved in depriving him of his rights). Plaintiff has largely failed to satisfy this standard.
To the extent that any conduct is attributed to other Defendants, such as Tompson and Zussel, Plaintiff's allegations are largely unintelligible. As such, Plaintiff's pleading fails to satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides, inter alia, that “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief 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). In the absence of clear and discernible factual averments, an order dismissing the complaint under Rule 8 is appropriate. Stephanatos v. Cohen, 236 Fed.Appx. 785, 787 (3d Cir. 2007). See also Binsack v. Lackawanna County Prison, 438 Fed.Appx. 158 (3d Cir. 2011) (dismissal is appropriate when the complaint is so “rambling and unclear” as to defy response from Defendants).
Finally, and most critically, there is no discernable nexus between Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Barth and Provencher and the amorphous due process violations that he attributes to a separate and distinct group of Defendants. Fed.R.Civ.P. 20 provides that “persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants” if “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Notably, the policy underlying Rule 20 - the promotion of trial convenience and efficiency - “is not a license to join unrelated claims and defendants in one lawsuit.” Williams v. Clark, 2018 WL 5983380, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2018) (internal quotation and quoting source omitted). In cases brought by pro se prisoners, Rule 20 “takes on additional importance in light of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”),” because “a prisoner-plaintiff who is permitted to combine separate, independent claims into one complaint is able to circumvent the PLRA's filing fee requirements and [its] potential ‘three strikes' limitation.” Id. (quoting Saltalamacchia v. Wentzel, 2017 WL 2843302, *3 (M.D. Pa. June 9, 2017)). Thus, it is well-settled that a litigant may not “raise unrelated claims in an effort to avoid the statutory filing fee required to initiate a new lawsuit.” Sledge v. Erie County Prison, 2021 WL 2073798, at *7 (W.D. Pa. May 24, 2021).
As noted above, there is no discernible nexus between Plaintiff's core allegations concerning his eye injury and the disjointed averments wedged into his claim for relief. To remedy a mis-joinder, a Court may add or drop a party or sever any claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 21 (“On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party”). See, e.g., Kokinda v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., 663 Fed.Appx. 156, 159 (3d Cir. 2016) (affirming severance of unrelated claims against discrete defendants); Williams, 2018 WL 5983380, at *4 (dropping unrelated defendants from pro se § 1983 action due to misjoinder). Consistent with this principle, it is recommended that all claims and Defendants be dismissed from this action except for Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Barth and Provencher and his medical indifference claim against unidentified medical personnel. Dismissal should be without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to reassert the dismissed claims in a new lawsuit - ideally, accompanied by a more detailed complaint - should he wish to do so.
Because the events at issue occurred in 2023, the decision to drop (rather than sever) those claims from this action has no statute of limitations ramifications. See DirecTV, Inc. v. Leto, 467 F.3d 842, 845 (3d Cir. 2006) (noting that, because the “decision to remedy misjoinder” has “important and potentially adverse statute-of-limitations consequences, the court should consider those consequences before choosing which remedy to employ).
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Superintendent Tompson, Medical Admenstrion, Major Zomer, Dept. Zusser, LT. RHU-DTU, Capt RHU-DTU, Syogogy Dept Conslor Roggs, Ms. Jessica, and Ms. Puttmen be terminated as Defendants in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). It is further recommended that all claims asserted in Plaintiff's Complaint, except for his excessive force against Barth an Provencher and his claim for medical indifference against unidentified medical personnel, be dismissed. Said dismissal should be without prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to assert those distinct claims in a separate lawsuit by filing a new complaint. Should this Report be adopted, the undersigned will independently direct service on Barth and Provencher and instruct Plaintiff to file an amended complaint concerning his medical claims.
IV. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties must seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the Objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Extensions of time will not be granted. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).