Travillion v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMAR L. TRAVILLION, No. 1:18-CV-02075

Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 13th day of October 2023, in accordance with the

accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. All claims against defendants Mark Garman, Adam Beck, Mr. H.

Probst, Mr. R. Vance, Justin Sherman, and Mr. T. Rogers are

DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for lack of

personal involvement. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate

defendants Mark Garman, Adam Beck, Mr. H. Probst, Mr. R. Vance,

Justin Sherman, and Mr. T. Rogers.

2. Defendants’ motion (Doc. 138) for summary judgment pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part, as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Travillion’s First

Amendment retaliation claims against all relevant Defendants

as more fully set forth in the accompanying Memorandum.

b. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Travillion’s First

Amendment “pattern and practice” claim concerning his legal

mail (unrelated to any specific Department of Corrections

policy) against all relevant Defendants as more fully set forth in

the accompanying Memorandum.

c. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Travillion’s First

Amendment free-speech claim against John E. Wetzel in his

individual capacity based on qualified immunity.

d. Defendants’ motion is DENIED in all other respects.

3. Entry of judgment in accordance with paragraph 2 above shall be

deferred pending resolution of Travillion’s remaining First

Amendment free-speech claim concerning incoming personal mail.

4. Any claim for declaratory or injunctive relief against defendant John

E. Wetzel in his individual capacity for the temporary mail-suspension

policy is DISMISSED as moot.

5. The First Amendment free-speech claim against defendant John E.

Wetzel in his official capacity is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because it is barred by Eleventh Amendment

sovereign immunity. Any related claim for prospective equitable

relief is DISMISSED as moot.

6. The First Amendment free-speech claim against defendant

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is DISMISSED pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because it is barred by Eleventh

Amendment sovereign immunity. Any related claim for prospective

equitable relief is DISMISSED as moot. The Clerk of Court is

directed to terminate defendant Pennsylvania Department of

Corrections.

7. Travillion’s First Amendment free-speech claims against defendant

Smart Communications Holding, Inc., are DISMISSED pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate

defendant Smart Communications Holding, Inc.

8. Counsel for Defendants shall, if possible, determine (out of

defendants Boone, Caprio, Harpster, Walters, and Wilson, who have

been identified generally as the five Doe defendants) the specific

identities of “John Doe #1” and “John Doe #4” as named in

paragraphs 31 and 36 of the amended complaint.1 Within 14 days of

the date of this Order, counsel for Defendants shall file a notice on the

docket providing the specific identities of John Doe #1 and John Doe

#4. If unable to do so, counsel shall provide the reasons why

identification cannot be made.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann

Matthew W. Brann

Chief United States District Judge

1 See Minor v. Del. River & Bay Auth., 70 F.4th 168, 175 (3d Cir. 2023) (“[A] plaintiff alleging

that one or more [state] officers engaged in unconstitutional conduct must establish the

personal involvement of each named defendant to survive summary judgment and take that

defendant to trial.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (second alteration in