Williamson v. Wetzel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BOBBY KENNETH :

WILLIAMSON, et al. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-1781

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Conner)

:

v. :

:

JOHN E. WETZEL, et al. :

:

Defendants :

MEMORANDUM

This is a prisoner civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiffs, Bobby Kenneth Williamson and Antonio Bundy,1 allege violations of the

civil rights of themselves and a putative class of other inmates at SCI-Huntingdon

based on purportedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. After screening

the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, we will deny

plaintiffs’ request to certify a class and dismiss their complaint without prejudice.

Williamson and Bundy will be granted leave to file an amended complaint that is

limited to their individual claims.

I. Factual Background & Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on September 28, 2023. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs

style their complaint as a “reopened/renewed” lawsuit because it purports to

enforce the settlement agreement reached between the Pennsylvania Department

1 A third plaintiff, Nicholas Edwards, has been dismissed from the case for

failure to pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc.

17).

of Corrections (“DOC”) and a class of inmates in Austin v. Pa. Dep’t of Corrs., 876 F.

Supp. 1437 (E.D. Pa. 1995). Plaintiffs assert that pursuant to Austin and the United

States Constitution, the DOC and SCI-Huntingdon are violating the constitutional

rights of plaintiffs and a putative class of other inmates at SCI-Huntingdon by

failing to remedy a variety of conditions of their confinement. Specifically, plaintiffs

allege: (1) that the DOC has failed to continue an asbestos abatement program; (2)

that SCI-Huntingdon neglects to test pipes and water in the prison to prevent lead

contamination; (3) that SCI-Huntingdon has failed to mitigate black mold growing

on cell walls in the prison; (4) that access to programs and jobs in SCI-Huntingdon

is awarded in a racially discriminatory manner; (5) that SCI-Huntingdon is

overcrowded; (6) that SCI-Huntingdon correctional officers routinely use excessive

force against inmates; (7) that educational programs in SCI-Huntingdon are

understaffed; (8) that there is a lack of recreational and educational programs in

SCI-Huntingdon; (9) that inmates are routinely given insufficient medical care in

SCI-Huntingdon; (10) that the DOC and SCI-Huntingdon give insufficient

assistance to inmates with disabilities; (11) that SCI-Huntingdon employs an

insufficient number of mental health staffers; (12) that SCI-Huntingdon and the

DOC provide insufficient resources to prevent and treat HIV; and (13) that SCI-

Huntingdon does not comply with relevant environmental, health, and fire safety

standards. (See generally Doc. 1).

II. Legal Standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act authorizes a district court to review a

complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis or

seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2);2 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.3 The court is required to identify cognizable claims

and to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

2 28 U.S.C. § 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.

3 28 U.S.C. § 1915A provides:

(a) Screening.--The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or,

in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a

civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental

entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

(b) Grounds for dismissal.--On review, the court shall identify

cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the

complaint, if the complaint--

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

such relief.

III. Discussion

Plaintiffs bring their constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section

1983 creates a private cause of action to redress constitutional wrongs committed by

state officials. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute is not a source of substantive rights, but

serves as a mechanism for vindicating rights otherwise protected by federal law.

See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 284-85 (2002); Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d

1199, 1204 (3d Cir. 1996). To state a Section 1983 claim, plaintiffs must show a

deprivation of a “right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United

States . . . by a person acting under color of state law.” Kneipp, 95 F.3d at 1204

(quoting Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141 (3d Cir. 1995)).

We will first address plaintiffs’ request for class certification. To certify a

class, plaintiffs must establish that:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable;

(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of

the claims or defenses of the class; and

(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the class.

FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a).

Class certification is clearly inappropriate in this case. “It is plain error to

permit an imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow

inmates in a class action.” Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146, 159 (3d Cir. 2009)

(internal alterations omitted) (quoting Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407

(4th Cir. 1975)).4 Moreover, to the extent plaintiffs argue that class certification is

appropriate because the case is reopening Austin, their argument is without merit.

The settlement agreement reached in Austin specifically provides that it is “not

enforceable by the plaintiffs or plaintiff class” and that members of the class in

Austin are instead required to bring “subsequent suits for monetary or injunctive

relief” to remedy alleged violations of their civil rights. Austin v. Pa. Dep’t of Corrs.,

876 F. Supp. 1437, 1448 (E.D. Pa. 1995).

Once the allegations on behalf of the putative class are disregarded, plaintiffs’

complaint plainly fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which

requires complaints to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiffs’ complaint

consists of a series of general statements about the conditions of confinement

within SCI-Huntingdon, many of which appear to have only affected other

members of the putative class rather than the plaintiffs. (See, e.g., Doc. 1 at 7-13

(alleging that numerous inmates have been exposed to asbestos and that some of

those inmates—though not plaintiffs—have been diagnosed with cancer following

4 The court in Hagan ultimately found that the district court’s denial of the

request for class certification was premature given that the plaintiffs had requested

appointment of counsel to represent the putative class and the district court had not

yet ruled on the motion to appoint counsel when it denied the motion for class

certification. Hagan, 570 F.3d at 159. We do not construe plaintiffs’ filings in the

instant case as requesting the appointment of counsel. To the extent they have

made such a request, however, we find that appointment of counsel is not

warranted at this time because plaintiffs have not made an adequate showing that

their claims have merit. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993) (“Before

the court is justified in exercising its discretion in favor of appointment, it must first

appear that the claim has some merit in fact and law.”).

their exposure); id. at 14-15 (alleging that unnamed inmates have been exposed to

lead in the drinking water and black mold on the walls of their cells); id. at 17-19

(alleging that unnamed inmates are denied jobs in a racially biased manner, denied

emergency medical care, and not given proper treatment for their disabilities)). It is

unclear from the complaint what conditions of confinement have personally

affected the plaintiffs or how they were injured by these conditions of confinement.

We will dismiss the complaint without prejudice and grant plaintiffs leave to file an

amended complaint to allege the factual basis for their individual claims in a

manner that complies with Rule 8.

IV. Conclusion

We will dismiss the complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. Plaintiffs will be granted leave to amend. An appropriate order shall

issue.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

Christopher C. Conner

United States District Judge

Middle District of Pennsylvania

Dated: May 20, 2024