The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALTON D. BROWN, )
Civil No. 16-1081
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
TOM WOLF, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION and ORDER
Before the Court are two appeals filed by Plaintiff Alton D. Brown requesting review of
two of the Magistrate Judge’s Text Orders addressing a Motion filed by Mr. Brown. ECF Nos.
314 & 315. Mr. Brown filed a Motion for Court Order Requiring Defendants to Return his
Prescription Eyeglasses. ECF No. 298. On September 29, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Text Order denying Mr. Brown’s Motion. ECF No. 308. On October 1, 2020, before Mr. Brown
would have received service of the September 29, 2020 Text Order, Mr. Brown filed a Reply to
Defendants’ Response to his Motion and Request for the Court to Ask the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to Investigate his Claims. ECF No. 309. On October 5, 2020, the Magistrate Judge
addressed Mr. Brown’s Reply and Request in a Text Order, stating that the Reply did not alter
the Court’s initial Text Order denying his Motion. ECF No. 310. The Text Order also denied
Mr. Brown’s Request to Order the FBI to investigate Mr. Brown’s claims. Id. Upon review, the
Court concludes that the Orders appealed from are neither clearly erroneous nor an abuse of
discretion. Therefore, Mr. Brown’s appeals will be dismissed.
1
I. Standard of Review
The Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 631–639, provides two separate standards for
judicial review of a magistrate judge’s decision: (i) “de novo,” for magistrate resolution of
dispositive matters, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C), accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (referring to “a
pretrial matter dispositive of a claim or defense”), and (ii) “clearly erroneous or contrary to law,”
for magistrate resolution of nondispositive matters, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), accord Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a) (referring to “a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense”). In
this case, the Order appealed from is nondispositive and will not be disturbed unless such is
found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A finding is clearly erroneous “when although
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470
U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948)).
“Where a magistrate judge is authorized to exercise his or her discretion, the decision will be
reversed only for an abuse of that discretion.” Cooper Hosp./Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Sullivan, 183
F.R.D. 119, 127 (D.N.J. 1998).
II. Discussion
Both Appeals concern Mr. Brown’s Motion for Court Order Requiring Defendants to
Return his Prescription Eyeglasses. Defendants responded to the Motion on September 25, 2020.
ECF No. 307. In Defendants’ Response, defense provided relevant documentary evidence
related to Mr. Brown’s grievance wherein he asserts that his prescription eyeglasses were taken
from his cell without cause during a cell search on June 16, 2020. Defendants explained that,
2
pursuant to Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ policy, inmates are permitted to retain two
pairs of eyeglasses in their cells. During the search it was discovered that Mr. Brown had three
pairs of eyeglasses: two clear and one shaded. One of the clear sets of eyeglasses was removed
from his cell. Defendants state that Mr. Brown’s “third pair of eyeglasses is being maintained
with his out of cell property,” and Mr. Brown may “request that one pair of his in-cell eyeglasses
be exchanged for the pair of eyeglasses being maintained with his out of cell property.” Id. In
denying Mr. Brown’s Motion, the Magistrate Judge stated, “[b]ased on the Commonwealth
Defendants’ response and pursuant to DC-ADM 815, it appears that Plaintiff may only retain up
to two pairs of eyeglasses in his cell.” Text Order, Sept. 29, 2020, ECF No. 308. Mr. Brown’s
appeal of the September 29, 2020 Text Order is primarily based on his contention calling into
question the credibility of prison staff reporting on what occurred during the cell search and the
credibility of prison staff responding to Mr. Brown’s grievances.
Mr. Brown filed his Reply to Defendants’ Response prior to receiving the September 29,
2020 Text Order denying his Motion. In his Reply, Mr. Brown challenges the credibility of
prison staff, and explains that his desire is to turn in his shaded prescription eyeglasses for his
clear prescription eyeglasses. ECF No. 309. In response to the Reply, the Magistrate Judge
declined to alter her initial Text Order denying Mr. Brown’s Motion. Text Order, Oct. 5, 2020,
ECF No. 310. The Magistrate Judge stated that Mr. Brown “may request to have his glasses
‘switched out’ in accordance with the requirements of DC-ADM 815.” Id. Mr. Brown’s appeal
of the October 5, 2020 Text Order states that he has already submitted a request to switch his
shaded eyeglasses for his clear eyeglasses to no avail. ECF No. 315. He further explains the
3
difficulty of using shaded prescription glasses to read, write, and conduct his daily activities. Id.
He states that prison staff are not acting in good faith and are intentionally engaging in retaliatory
conduct designed to cause him to suffer for exercising his First Amendment right to pursue
litigation, all while giving the appearance that the conduct is appropriate. Id. Finally, he asserts
that Defendants refusal to provide him with his preferred pair of clear prescription eyeglasses is a
deprivation of his serious medical need, implying that the conduct may be in violation of the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Id.
Mr. Brown wants his preferred pair of clear eyeglasses as he prosecutes this action, as
well as for use in his everyday activities. Although Mr. Brown has not been prevented from
pursing his claims, he is presently in a position that makes it physically difficult to read defense
pleadings and to prepare his own pleadings. He alleges that prison staff are deliberately
withholding his clear prescription eyeglasses in order to retaliate against him for pursuing his
First Amendment activities, and to cause him to suffer. He supports this allegation with
documentary evidence in the form of a July 27, 2020 written request for the return of the
prescription eyeglasses that were confiscated during the June 16, 2020 cell search. Inmate’s
Request to Staff Member, July 27, 2020, ECF No. 309-1. In response, he was told to take his
request to “the UM” (Unit Manager). Id. Mr. Brown followed up with a second request for the
return of his glasses directed to the Unit Manager. Inmate’s Request to Staff Member, July 31,
2020, ECF No. 309-2. In this Request he states:
You told me you were going to check on my prescription glasses that were taken
during the 6/16/20 search of my cell. I use the shades for preventing migraines
and the regular glasses to read and write. . . . I am going blind trying to see with
shades 24/7.
4
Id. In response, Mr. Brown was told that a different staff member, “Lt. DiSalvo.” was “looking
into his concerns.” Id. On August 6, 2020, Mr. Brown submitted another request directed to the
Unit Manager asking, “[c]an you collect these shades and give me my regular glasses? Trying to
read and write in shades causes me health problems.” Inmate’s Request to Staff Member,
August 6, 2020, ECF No. 309-3. In response Mr. Brown was told to “speak with Lt. DiSalvo.”
Id.
The present matter concerns the number of pairs of eyeglasses Mr. Brown may have in
his cell (two pairs or less) and the prison staff’s present retention of Mr. Brown’s regular, clear,
eyeglasses that he wants returned to him. This matter is not related to Mr. Brown’s claims in the
above-captioned case. Mr. Brown has been previously advised that he is not permitted to assert
in this case any claim unrelated to his pending imminent danger claims.
In any event, Defendants’ Response establishes that Mr. Brown’s regular, clear,
prescription eyeglasses were removed from his cell in accord with DC-ADM 815, which limits
possession of in-cell glasses to two pairs. In other words, the conduct is reasonably related to a
legitimate penological reason. Moreover, Defendants state in their Response that Mr. Brown is
able to exchange his shaded eyeglasses for his clear eyeglasses by requesting such an exchange.
His request for such an exchange is presently being responded to by prison staff.1 The Court
declines to inject itself into a matter that is within the discretion of the Pennsylvania Department
1 Defendants are always, generally, prohibited from taking retaliatory actions against prisoners for the
exercise of their constitutionally protected rights. In light of Mr. Brown’s litigation history, and given the
apparent reasonableness of his request for the return of his preferred prescription eyeglasses, it appears
unlikely that Defendants would continue to retain possession of Mr. Brown’ preferred eyeglasses
(presuming they are in fact in their possession) for any reason other than one that Defendants can clearly
and specifically articulate as reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.
5
of Corrections, as guided by its relevant policies and procedures. Accordingly, the Magistrate
Judge’s Orders are not clearly erroneous, contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion.”
It is hereby ORDERED Mr. Brown’s Appeals, ECF Nos. 314 & 315, are DENIED.
Dated: October 30, 2020 priloy. Alora
Marilyn J. Horan
United States District Judge
ce: ALTON D. BROWN
DL-4686
SCI Fayette
48 Overlook Drive
LaBelle, PA 15450-1050
(via U.S. First Class Mail)
All Counsel of Record
(via ECF electronic notification)
> Tt seems that all that Mr. Brown wants is to obtain his clear prescription eyeglasses. Mr. Brown
expresses concern that he has been deprived of his preferred prescription glasses; and, although he
requested them on July 27, 2020, he has not yet received them. The continuing delay is concerning in
light of Defendants’ Response which states that Mr. Brown’s eyeglasses would be returned to him if he
would simply make the request. ECF No. 307. Mr. Brown provides documentation that he has made
requests. ECF Nos.309-1, 309-2, and 309-3. While not within the scope of issues in this lawsuit, it seems
to the Court that the most effective way to deal with the issue at hand would be for the prison to respond
to Mr. Brown’s request.