Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-5459.
June 11, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Kevin Ignudo ("Ignudo") filed a § 1983 complaint against Defendants Mannie McPhearson, David Byrne, Michael Lang, George W. Hill, Leo Levandowski, Deputy Warden Warner, Warden Caufield, Corrections Officer Kyle Taniguchi, Corrections Officer Porter and the George W. Hill Correctional Facility (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. See Markowitz v. Northeast Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1990); Sturm v. Clark, 835 F.2d 1009, 1011 (3d Cir. 1987). In considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all factual allegations of the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Board of Trs. of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Local 6 of N.J. v. Wettlin Assoc., Inc., 237 F.3d 270, 272 (3d Cir. 2001). This is especially true where, as here, the complaint is filed pro se. See Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003) (noting that a court must liberally construe the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff); McGrath v. Johnson, 67 F. Supp.2d 499, 505 (E.D.Pa. 1999) (The court must "read a pro se plaintiff's allegations liberally and apply a less stringent standard to the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff than to a complaint drafted by counsel."). A court therefore "may dismiss a [claim] only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations." See Ramadan v. Chase Manhattan Corp., 229 F.3d 194, 195-96 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Alexander v. Whitman, 114 F.3d 1392, 1398 (3d Cir. 1997)).
Ignudo's claims against Defendants George W. Hill, Leo Levandowski, Deputy Warden Warner and Warden Caufield are based on their status as administrative officials at the George W. Hill Correctional Facility. "[A] defendant cannot be liable under § 1983 unless there is some showing that he was `either directly involved in, or had knowledge of and acquiesced in,' the alleged violation." Hill v. Blum, 916 F. Supp. 470, 474 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (quoting Hodgin v. Roth, 536 F. Supp. 454 (E.D.Pa. 1982)). In other words, there is no respondeat superior liability in § 1983 cases. See, e.g., Fagan v. City of Vineland, 22 F.3d 1283, 1291 (3d Cir. 1994). In this case, Ignudo has failed to allege any facts showing Defendants George W. Hill, Leo Levandowski, Deputy Warden Warner and Warden Caufield were personally involved in the alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, these Defendants are dismissed from this action.
Ignudo also names as a Defendant the George W. Hill Correctional Facility. The George W. Hill Correctional Facility is not a legal entity susceptible to suit. Because the George W. Hill Correctional Facility is a department of Delaware County, the County is the appropriate party to address Plaintiff's suit. Governmental entities cannot be held responsible for a constitutional deprivation unless there is a direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged violation of constitutional rights. See Bielevicz v. Dubinon, 915 F.2d 845, 850 (3d Cir. 1990); see also Monell v. Dep't. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Moreover, a governmental entity cannot be held responsible under § 1983 for injuries inflicted by its employees or agents merely because it employs the wrongdoer. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691. As previously discussed, the theory of respondeat superior simply cannot provide the basis for liability in § 1983 actions. Accordingly, the George W. Hill Correctional Facility is dismissed from this action.
Unlike the plaintiff in Derrickson v. Hill, Civ. A. No. 97-5484, 2000 WL 378134, at *1 n. 1 (E.D. Pa. April 13, 2000) (denying the defendants' motion to dismiss where, as here, they asserted the prison is not a legal entity amenable to suit, but failed to provide the court with authority regarding whether Pennsylvania has accorded prisons the capacity to be sued), Ignudo has not alleged that the prison failed to protect him by reason of a custom or policy which promoted or permitted the use of excessive force against inmates.
On March 12, 2004, Ignudo filed a "More Definite Statement," alleging Defendants Mannie McPhearson, David Byrne, Michael Lang and Corrections Officers Kyle Taniguchi and "Porter" "punched and kicked [him] in [his] lower back, face and upper body" without provocation. (Dkt. No. 22). Ignudo allegedly suffered a swollen and blackened eye, a ruptured blood vessel in his left eye and facial lacerations. These allegations are sufficient to defeat Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Defendants Mannie McPhearson, David Byrne, Michael Lang and Corrections Officers Kyle Taniguchi and "Porter." ACCORDINGLY, this 10th day of June, 2004, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss/Motion for More Definite Statement (Dkt. No. 15), and Plaintiff's response thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants George W. Hill, Leo Levandowski, Deputy Warden Warner, Warden Caufield and the George W. Hill Correctional Facility are DISMISSED.
2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Defendants Mannie McPhearson, David Byrne, Michael Lang, Corrections Officer Kyle Taniguchi and Corrections Officer "Porter."
3. Defendants' request for a more definite statement is DENIED, in that Plaintiff filed a "More Definite Statement" on March 12, 2004.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that:
1. Factual and Expert discovery shall be completed by August 24, 2004.
2. Dispositive motions shall be filed by September 14, 2004.
3. Responses to dispositive motions shall be filed by October 5, 2004. Upon resolution of dispositive motions, the Court will schedule a final pretrial conference.