finding that because the inmate plaintiffs transfer rendered the case moot the district court lacked jurisdiction over the merits of the case
How later courts described this case
- finding that because the inmate plaintiffs transfer rendered the case moot the district court lacked jurisdiction over the merits of the case
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FERNANDO FONSECA, Jr., :
BRADLEY L. MERWINE,
WILLIE JAMES BROWN, :
Plaintiffs :
v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-1427
GENE BERDANIER, et al., : (Judge Mannion)
Defendants :
MEMORANDUM
|. Background
Seventeen inmates, all housed in Schuylkill County Prison, Pottsville,
Pennsylvania, filed the above captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
(Doc. 1). The named Defendants are fourteen correctional officers employed
at Schuylkill County Prison and William Baldwin, Schuylkill County Prison
Board President. Id.
By Order dated August 19, 2019, this Court issued a Thirty (30) Day
Administrative Order, requiring each Plaintiff to file a completed and signed
Application to Proceed /n Forma Pauperis, or pay the filing fee, within thirty
days. (Doc. 5).
To date, Plaintiffs Fonseca, Merwine, and Brown are the only Plaintiffs
to submit an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis under
28 U.S.C. 81915. Consequently, the remaining Plaintiffs will be dismissed
from the above captioned action for failure to file a completed and signed
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, or pay the filing fee.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (the "Act"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110
Stat. Application to Proceed /n Forma Pauperis, or pay the filing fee 1321
(April 26, 1996) imposes obligations on prisoners who file suit in federal court
and wish to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §1915, e.g., the full
filing fee ultimately must be paid (at least in a non-habeas suit). Also, the
section requires screening complaints in prisoner actions. '
The complaint will now be reviewed pursuant to the screening provisions
of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive
relief will be dismissed and Plaintiffs’ claims for damages will proceed.
When considering a complaint accompanied by a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, a district court may determine that process should not be
"Section 1915(e)(2) provides:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have
been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action
or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief.
issued if the complaint is malicious, presents an indisputably meritless legal
theory, or is predicated on clearly baseless factual contentions. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989); Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774
(3d Cir. 1989).” “The frivolousness determination is a discretionary one,” and
trial courts “are in the best position” to determine when an indigent litigant’s
complaint is appropriate for summary dismissal. Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
ll. Allegations in the Complaint
The Plaintiffs make the following ten claims regarding the conditions of
the Schuylkill County Prison:
1. | There is mold growing in the cinder block near the
showers.
2. The ceiling tiles have fell and are falling in the block
and above tables where individuals eat with particles
that fall from ceiling.
3. There are electric extension cords bare in the shower
area attached to the railing which is rust.
4. The kitchen is not serving the proper portion of food
7Indisputably meritless legal theories are those “in which it is either
readily apparent that the plaintiff's complaint lacks an arguable basis in law
or that the defendants are clearly entitled to immunity from suit.”. Roman v.
Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990) (quoting Sultenfuss v. Snow, 894
F.2d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir. 1990)). Clearly baseless factual contentions
describe scenarios “clearly removed from reality.” Id.
and inmates are being mal nutriented (sic) and
deprived of the proper amount of calories required per
meal per day.
5. There is no air circulation. The windows and sills are
cluttered with debris and there is no air circulation;
even the guards say its inhumane.
6. Inmates are sold instant coffee but not supplied hot
water to drink it. The same is sold Ramen soup but
not given hot water to make them.
7. There’s toilet paper and debris hanging from the
ceiling and it sometimes falls into individual food or
onto individuals. It’s extremely unsanitary.
8. Inmates that feel it’s to hot to go out to yard are
forced to lock in cells that are atrocious with heat and
no air circulation.
9. No cold water is supplied on the block or in the yard
for inmates to drink to re-hydrate.
10. The heat and living conditions of this facility are/is
inhumane.
(Doc. 1). Plaintiffs claim that they have “been sick, vomiting, heat stroke and
exhausting, difficulty breathing at times and constant headaches. Id. For
relief, Plaintiffs seek to have “the ceiling repaired, the mold removed, the
cinder blocks broke out and replaced, the debris on the ceilings wiped
off/brushed off, the amount of food being served to be monitored to make
sure the proper portion is being served, some type of coolant or ventilation
system put in and windows cleaned out so air can come through the screens
or windows, welded close and air conditioning system installed, hot water
keep on the block or a 180̊ line put in or microwave and 24,000,000 for
4
medical expenses and bills that could possibly arise in the future from
breathing in the germs of the mold and to divide amongst inmates that were
affected by and mistreated through these conditions we’d like some type of
step welded onto the beds for people to get up and down the bunks, plates
so inmates can’t roll off top bunks and get hurt. Id.
On October 11, 2019, mail sent to Plaintiff, Fernando Fonseca, was
returned as undeliverable, stating inmate not at Schuylkill County Prison,
return to sender and unable to forward. (Doc. 34).
On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff, Bradley Merwine filed a notice of
address change, indicating that on August 20, 2019, he was transferred from
the Schuylkill County Prison to the Mahanoy State Correctional Institution,
Frackville, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 36). Plaintiff, William Brown’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, indicates that he is now being held in the State
Correctional Institution, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 38). Thus, it is
apparent that the three Plaintiffs permitted to proceed in the above captioned
action are no longer confined in the Schuylkill County Prison.
III. Discussion
The adjudicatory power of a federal court depends upon the “continuing
5
existence of alive and acute controversy.” Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452,
459 (1974). A federal court may entertain “only actual, ongoing cases or
controversies.” Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting
Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)). Where a plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief for prison conditions that he is no longer subject to,
there is no longer a live controversy and a court cannot grant that injunctive
relief. See Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195, 206 (3d Cir. 1993); Fortes v.
Harding, 19 F. Supp.2d 323, 326 (M.D. Pa. 1998).
Significantly, a transfer from one prison facility to another moots any
claims for injunctive or declaratory relief pending against officials at the
institution from which he was transferred moot. See Abdul-Akbar v. Watson,
4 F.3d 195, 206-07 (3rd Cir. 1993); Weaver v. Wilcox, 650 F.2d 22, 27 (3rd
Cir. 1981). See also, Spencer v. Sec’y Dep't of Corr., No. 14-2009, 2015 WL
3895302, at *1 n.2 (3d Cir. June 25, 2015) (noting that plaintiff's transfer
rendered his request for declaratory and injunctive relief against officials at
that institution moot); Banks v. Sec’y Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., 601 F.
App’x 101, 103 (3d Cir. 2015) (same); Capozzi v. Bledsoe, 560 F. App’x 157,
159 (3d Cir. 2014) (same); Mollett v. Leicth, 511 F. App’x 172, 174 (3d Cir.
2013) (finding that because the inmate plaintiffs transfer rendered the case
moot the district court lacked jurisdiction over the merits of the case).
Plaintiffs’ complaint, seeking injunctive relief related to their conditions of
confinement at the Schuylkill County Prison are now moot, as they are no
longer incarcerated at Schuylkill County Prison. Thus, Plaintiffs’ claims for
injunctive relief will be dismissed and Plaintiffs will be permitted to proceed
only on their claim for damages. A separate Order will be issued.
s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATED: December 11, 2019
19-1427-01
7