# Stephens v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · March 23, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10410080

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 23, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10410080

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY C. STEPHENS, : Civil No. 1:19-CV-00102
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
: Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF :
PROBATION AND PAROLE, et al., :
:
Defendants. : Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
MEMORANDUM
This is a prisoner civil rights case in which Plaintiff Jeffrey C. Stephens
(“Stephens”), an inmate confined in SCI Dallas in Dallas, Pennsylvania, alleges
that Defendants the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole and the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections have repeatedly denied him parole in a
way that violates the Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act
“(ADA”). The case is presently before the court on Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, a report and recommendation issued by United States
Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., which recommends granting the motion,
and Stephens’s objections to the report and recommendation. (Docs. 50, 60, 63.)
For the reasons that follow, the court finds that Defendants are entitled to
summary judgment as to Stephens’s constitutional claims, but that Stephens’s
request for additional discovery did not receive sufficient consideration prior to the
issuance of the report and recommendation. Accordingly, the court will adopt the
1
report and recommendation in part, reject it in part, grant Defendants summary
judgment as to the constitutional claims, and recommit the matter to Judge

Saporito with instructions to further consider Stephens’s request for discovery with
regard to the ADA claim.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Stephens initiated this case through the filing of a complaint, which the court
received on January 16, 2019. (Doc. 1.) Judge Saporito subsequently granted
Stephens leave to file an amended complaint, see Doc. 13, and Stephens then filed
an amended complaint on April 24, 2019. (Doc. 16.) Defendants moved to

dismiss the amended complaint on June 14, 2019, see Doc. 24, but Judge Saporito
deemed the motion to dismiss withdrawn for Defendants’ failure to file a
supporting brief on July 16, 2019. (Doc. 29.) Defendants accordingly answered

the amended complaint on August 2, 2019. (Doc. 31.)
Following the close of pleading, Stephens filed motions to compel discovery
on November 7, 2019, and February 10, 2020. (Docs. 35, 44.) In the latter
motion, Stephens asserted that Defendants had not responded to his requests for

discovery, which included, among other things, a request for documents pertaining
to the decisions to deny his parole. (See Doc. 44, pp. 14–15; Doc. 44-1, pp. 9–11.)
While the second motion to compel discovery was pending, Defendants filed

the instant motion for summary judgment on May 8, 2020. (Doc. 50.) Judge
2
Saporito then addressed the pending motion to compel discovery on June 24, 2020.
(Doc. 56.) Judge Saporito found that Defendants had failed to respond to

Stephens’s discovery requests and accordingly ordered them to do so. (Id. at 3–4.)
Judge Saporito further ordered that if Stephens found “the defendants’ responses to
be evasive or incomplete” he could “bring another motion to compel pursuant to

Rule 37(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Id. at 4.) Given that ruling, Judge
Saporito sua sponte extended the deadline for Stephens to file a brief in opposition
to the motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 6.)
Stephens filed a brief opposing the summary judgment motion on August

24, 2020. (Doc. 57.) In his brief, Stephens asserted that he could not adequately
respond to Defendants’ summary judgment arguments because he had not received
“discovery of the facts relied upon by Defendants to deny parole.” (Id. at 2.)

Defendants did not file a reply brief to respond to this argument.
Judge Saporito issued the instant report and recommendation on January 6,
2021. (Doc. 60.) Judge Saporito first concludes that Defendants are entitled to
summary judgment as to Stephens’s constitutional claims because neither

defendant qualifies as a person that is amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(Id. at 9–11.) Judge Saporito then concludes that Defendants are entitled to
summary judgment as to Stephens’s ADA claim. (Id. at 11–13.) Judge Saporito

acknowledges that denial of parole based on substance abuse and post-traumatic
3
stress disorder as alleged by Stephens “might . . . violate the ADA in some cases,”
but finds that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment because Stephens “has

failed to adduce any evidence whatsoever to support such a claim.” (Id. at 12.)
Judge Saporito does not address Stephens’s argument that he has not received
sufficient discovery to respond to Defendants’ summary judgment motion.

The court granted Stephens an extension of time in which to file objections
on January 22, 2021, and Stephens timely did so on February 23, 2021. (Docs. 62–
63.) In his objections, Stephens reiterates his argument that he cannot adequately
respond to Defendants’ summary judgment arguments because he has not received

discovery from Defendants. (Id. at 10.) Defendants have not filed a brief in
opposition to Stephens’s objections, and the deadline for doing so has expired.
Accordingly, the report and recommendation and Stephens’s objections are ripe for

the court’s disposition.
JURISDICTION
This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which allows a district
court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction in civil cases arising under the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the

district court is required to conduct a de novo review of the contested portions of
4
the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3);
Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989). The district court may

accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in
whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may also receive
further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with further

instructions. Id. “Although the standard is de novo, the extent of review is
committed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and the court may rely on
the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.”
Weidman v. Colvin, 164 F. Supp. 3d 650, 653 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Rieder v.

Apfel, 115 F. Supp. 2d 496, 499 (M.D. Pa. 2000)).
De novo review of a report and recommendation is not required for those
portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections have been raised.

Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa.
2010) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). Instead, the court is only
required to “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory

committee’s note to 1983 addition).
A court may grant a motion for summary judgment when “there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute of fact is material if resolution of
5
the dispute “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Summary judgment is

not precluded by “[f]actual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary.” Id. “‘A
dispute is genuine if a reasonable trier-of-fact could find in favor of the
nonmovant’ and ‘material if it could affect the outcome of the case.’” Thomas v.

Tice, 943 F.3d 145, 149 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh
Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294, 300 (3d Cir. 2012)).
In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable

inferences in that party’s favor. Jutrowski v. Twp. of Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280, 288
(3d Cir. 2018) (citing Scheidemantle v. Slippery Rock Univ. State Sys. of Higher
Educ., 470 F.3d 535, 538 (3d Cir. 2006)). The court may not “weigh the evidence”

or “determine the truth of the matter.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Instead, the
court’s role in reviewing the facts of the case is “to determine whether there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Id. The court is additionally required to liberally construe
any filings by an unrepresented litigant. Sause v. Bauer, 585 U.S. __, 138 S. Ct.

2561, 2563 (2018).
The party moving for summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of
informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those

portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
6
on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). The non-moving party must then
oppose the motion, and in doing so “‘may not rest upon the mere allegations or
denials of [its] pleadings’ but instead, ‘must set forth specific facts showing that

there is a genuine issue for trial. Bare assertions, conclusory allegations, or
suspicions will not suffice.’” Jutrowski, 904 F.3d at 288–89 (quoting D.E. v. Cent.
Dauphin Sch. Dist., 765 F.3d 260, 268–69 (3d Cir. 2014)).
Summary judgment is appropriate where the non-moving party “fails to

make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.”
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support

of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the
jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. “Where
the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the
non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.,

Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
DISCUSSION
At the outset, the court will address the portion of the report and

recommendation recommending that the court grant summary judgment as to
7
Stephens’s constitutional claims because neither defendant qualifies as a person
that is amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Doc. 60 at 9–11.) Because

neither party has objected to that portion of the report and recommendation, the
court reviews it only for clear error. See Univac Dental v., 702 F. Supp. 2d at 469.
Having conducted such a review, the court finds no clear error on the face of the

record and adopts that portion of the report and recommendation. Defendants will
accordingly be granted summary judgment as to Stephens’s constitutional claims.
Having resolved the constitutional claims, the court turns its attention to
Stephens’s argument that he has not received sufficient discovery. Because any

additional discovery would not alter the fact that Defendants are not amenable to
suit under § 1983, the court considers Stephens’s discovery argument only with
respect to his ADA claim.

When a party opposing a motion for summary judgment shows that it
“cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition,” the court may allow the
parties additional time for discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). “If discovery is
incomplete, a district court is rarely justified in granting summary judgment, unless

the discovery request pertains to facts that are not material to the moving party’s
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.” In re Avandia Mktg., Sales & Prods.
Liab. Litig., 945 F.3d 749, 761 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Shelton v. Bledsoe, 775

F.3d 554, 568 (3d Cir. 2015)).
8
To properly request additional discovery for purposes of opposing summary
judgment, a party must “indicate to the district court its need for discovery, what

material facts it hopes to uncover and why it has not previously discovered the
information.” Radich v. Goode, 886 F.2d 1391, 1393–94 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing
Hancock Indus. v. Schaeffer, 811 F.2d 225 (3d Cir. 1987)). A properly filed

request for additional discovery under Rule 56(d) is generally granted “as a matter
of course.” Avandia, 945 F.3d at 761 (quoting Shelton, 775 F.3d at 468). A
request for additional discovery does not need to be made through a formal motion
and can instead be raised through the brief opposing summary judgment. Shelton,

775 F.3d at 567–68. The decision of whether to permit additional discovery is left
to the discretion of the district court. Woloszyn v. Cty. of Lawrence, 396 F.3d 314,
324 n.6 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Bradley v. United States, 299 F.3d 197, 206 (3d Cir.

2002)).
In this case, Stephens has repeatedly argued that Defendants have not
adequately responded to his requests for discovery, and he has made that argument
in both his brief opposing the motion for summary judgment and his objections to

the report and recommendation. (See Docs. 57, 63; see also Docs. 35, 44.) Judge
Saporito considered this argument in resolving Stephens’s most recent motion to
compel discovery, but did not consider the argument when Stephens raised it in

opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
9
Stephens’s argument that he has not received sufficient discovery to respond
to Defendants’ summary judgment motion was a procedurally proper way to

request additional discovery. Although Judge Saporito’s order granting Stephens’s
motion to compel discovery specified that Stephens could file an additional motion
to compel discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) if the Defendants

continued to not respond to his discovery requests, see Doc. 56, p. 4, the order did
not state that a motion to compel discovery was the only way that Stephens could
request additional discovery. (See id. (“If the plaintiff finds the defendants’
responses to be evasive or incomplete, he may bring another motion to compel

pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.” (emphasis added)).) The
order therefore did not foreclose Stephens from seeking discovery through other
methods, such as a request for additional discovery under Rule 56(d).

Stephens has not taken all the steps he must take in order to properly request
discovery under Rule 56(d). Specifically, he has not stated which material facts he
hopes to uncover and why he has not previously discovered that information. See
Radich, 886 F.2d at 1393–94. Nevertheless, the court is reluctant to consider

whether Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to Stephens’s ADA claim
without consideration of Stephens’s request for additional discovery because
Stephens’s request repeats arguments he has made throughout this litigation, and

10
the court must liberally construe Stephens’s arguments because he is proceeding as
an unrepresented litigant. See Sause, 138 S. Ct. at 2563.

The court is especially reluctant to proceed given that the report and
recommendation relies in part on the fact that Stephens has not adduced any
evidence to support his ADA claim. (See Doc. 60, p. 12.) Stephens has repeatedly

asserted that Defendants have not responded to his discovery requests, and it would
accordingly be unjust to grant Defendants summary judgment based on a lack of
evidence to support Stephens’s ADA claim without first considering whether
Stephens has received adequate responses to his discovery requests.

The court further finds that Judge Saporito is in the best position to address
Stephens’s request for additional discovery because Judge Saporito has been
assigned to this case for all pretrial management and has resolved Stephens’s

previous motions to compel discovery. The court will therefore recommit the
matter to Judge Saporito for further consideration of Stephens’s request for
additional discovery as to his ADA claim.
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the report and recommendation is adopted in part
and rejected in part and this case is recommitted to Judge Saporito for further

11
consideration of Stephens’s request for additional discovery. An appropriate order
follows.

s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Court Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: March 23, 2021

12

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10410080. Public record. Not legal advice.