Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-356
09-10-2020
RASHEED VAN v. GEORGE W. HILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (CERT Team), SGT. S. JONES, NURSE S. MEALO, J. FRIDAY, C/O S. BALDWIN, SGT. ROYALS, LEACH (Chief of Security), C/O RASCHID, CERT. SGT. CARTER
MEMORANDUM Savage, J.
Plaintiff, Rasheed Van, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against both individual and institutional defendants. He also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. Because it appears that Van is not capable of paying the fees to commence this civil action, we shall grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We shall dismiss his Complaint without prejudice and grant him leave to file an amended complaint.
Factual Allegations
The facts giving rise to Van's claim are alleged to have occurred at the George W. Hill Correctional Facility. According to a Formal Disciplinary Report attached to Van's Complaint, on September 2, 2019 Van was a part of a group of 26 inmates that "incited a Riot on unit (7C) stemming from issues with the HVAC system," which "caused a Major disturbance" and resulted in the facility being placed on lockdown. Handwriting on the attachment indicates that the report is a "cover up because they attacked us!".
Compl. at 2. (Doc No. 3).
Id. at 6.
Id.
The factual basis for Van's claims as alleged in his Complaint which we recite as true are as follows. On September 2, 2019, the HVAC system in Unit 7C had not been operational for two days. During that time, because of his asthma, Van was wheezing. Van avers that when he kept asking Correctional Officer Raschid if he could go to medical, Raschid "acted as if he was busy [and] it didn't matter." Raschid then called a "Mass Refusal" on Unit 7C and 15-30 correctional officers and sergeants entered the block. Van avers that although he tried explaining his asthma issues to Sergeant Jones, Sergeant Carter told all Correctional Emergency Response Team ("CERT") employees to exit the block and "he just sprayed [mace] all over the block."
Id. at 3.
Id.
Id.
Id. It is unclear whether Van's reference to "he" refers to Jones, Carter or someone else.
CERT reentered the unit with "Riot shields & pepper ball guns". Van alleges that "all CERT employees" sprayed mace all over the block, fired pellets of pepper balls at the inmates, then zip tied and assaulted the inmates. Van asserts that the inmates were hit with batons and their faces were smashed against the ground with the shields of the CERT employees. Affected inmates, including Van, were taken to the medical unit, checked for injuries, and returned to Unit 7C.
Id.
Id. at 3, 6.
Id.
Id.
Van claims that he was in the medical unit for "no longer than 2 minutes." During that time, Van asked Nurse Mealo for a breathing treatment, asserting that the mace made his asthma flare up, but he was not given the treatment. He avers that Nurse Mealo replied that "she wish[ed] she could help [them] but she needs this job." The inmates, including Van, were taken back to their cells where they remained on lock down status and Van was not permitted to use the shower or visit with family, and was denied access to personal mail.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Van avers that he suffered cuts and bruises to his face and had migraines for an entire week with no medical attention. The day after the disturbance, Van allegedly asked Correctional Officer Friday if he could go to medical. Friday responded that "he had specific instructions to just check on the inmates in each cell, and no one was allowed to leave the block." Sergeant Royals also allegedly ignored his request. Van further asserts that on an unspecified day he asked Chief Leach, who walked by his cell, for new sheets and a different set of clothing. Although Leach responded that he would get those items, Van did not receive them. Van "finally" got to medical on either September 12 or 13. He was told he had a "severe ear infection from the [mace] being in his ear so long."
Id. at 3.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 9.
Id.
Id. at 3.
Based on these allegations, we understand Van to be bringing claims based on conditions of confinement, and for excessive force and denial of medical care. He seeks monetary compensation in the amount of $100,000 for his injuries and requests that his claim be investigated.
Id. at 9.
Standard of Review
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), we must dismiss the Complaint if it fails to state a claim. Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). The 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) (quotations omitted). "[M]ere conclusory statements do not suffice." Id. Because Van is proceeding pro se, we construe his allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
A complaint may be dismissed for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 91 (3d Cir. 2019). To conform to Rule 8, a pleading must contain a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Travaline v. US. Supreme Court, 424 F. App'x 78, 79 (3d Cir. 2011). The Third Circuit recently explained that in determining whether a pleading meets Rule 8's "plain" statement requirement, the court should "ask whether, liberally construed, a pleading 'identifies discrete defendants and the actions taken by these defendants' in regard to the plaintiffs claims." Garrett, 938 F.3d at 93 (citation omitted). A pleading may still satisfy the "plain" statement requirement "even if it is vague, repetitious, or contains extraneous information" and "even if it does not include every name, date, and location of the incidents at issue." Id. at 93-94. The important consideration is whether, "a pro se complaint's language ... presents cognizable legal claims to which a defendant can respond on the merits." Id. at 94.
"A pleading that is so 'vague or ambiguous' that a defendant cannot reasonably be expected to respond to it will not satisfy Rule 8." Id. at 93; see also Fabian v. St. Mary's Med. Ctr., Civ. A. No. 16-4741, 2017 WL 3494219, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2017) ("Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that pleadings provide enough information to put a defendant on sufficient notice to prepare their defense and also ensure that the Court is sufficiently informed to determine the issue.") (quotations omitted). Dismissals under Rule 8 are '"reserved for those cases in which the complaint so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised."' Garrett, 938 F.3d at 94 (quoting Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988)).
Discussion
Van asserts violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. "To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Vicarious liability does not apply in a § 1983 action. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. To be liable, a defendant must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988).
Van's Complaint Fails to State a Claim
Van does not specifically attribute conduct to any individual defendant. Rather, he describes certain events generally and states that improper conduct was committed by "all CERT employees." The few factual allegations that mention specific individual defendants do not identify who committed specific conduct. For instance, one of the allegations in the Complaint states: "[w]hile explaining this to Sgt. Jones, Sgt. Carter told all CERT employee's [sic] to exit the block, while all the staff exited the block he just sprayed [mace] all over the block." It is unclear who Van is referring to by the use of "he." Van could be referring to Sgt. Jones, Sgt. Carter, or one of the CERT employees.
Id. at 3.
Id.
Even construing Van's Complaint liberally, we cannot discern who did what. See Lawal v. McDonald, 546 F. App' x 107, 113 (3d Cir. 2014) (pleading that relied on "repeated and collective use of the word 'Defendants"' was ambiguous about each Defendant's role in the events giving rise to plaintiffs' claims). In a § 1983 action, the personal involvement of each defendant in the alleged constitutional violation is a required element. Therefore, a plaintiff must allege how each defendant was involved in the events and occurrences giving rise to the claims. Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207; Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d 187,210 (3d Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (explaining that " [b]ecause vicarious liability is inapplicable to ... § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.").
Van's reference to "all CERT employees" is insufficient to put a defendant on notice of what he or she must defend.
We shall dismiss without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and permit Van to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days if he wishes to proceed with the case.
Claims Against George W. Hill Correctional Facility
Although Van includes the George W. Hill Correctional Facility in the initial page of his Complaint, he does not refer to it in the body of his Complaint. Even if he had, any § 1983 claim against the George W. Hill Correctional Facility is deficient because a "prison or correctional facility is not a 'person' that is subject to suit under federal civil rights laws." Regan v. Upper Darby Twp., No. CIV A 06-1686, 2009 WL 650384, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2009), aff'd, 363 F. App'x 917 (3d Cir. 2010); see also White v. Green, Civ. A. No. 09-1219, 2009 WL 3209647, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 6, 2009) ("This Court has held that the George W. Hill Correctional Facility, is not a legal entity that is amenable to suit under § 1983.") (quotations omitted). Therefore, we shall dismiss with prejudice Van's claims against the George W. Hill Correctional Facility.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we shall grant Van leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss with prejudice his claims against the George W. Hill Correctional Facility, and dismiss the remainder of the Complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Van will be permitted to file an amended complaint to attempt to cure the defects. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).