INGRAM v. S. DAVIS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KAI D. INGRAM, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Civil No. 22-42

) Judge Marilyn J. Horan/

v. ) Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge

)

B. RUDZIENSKI, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge for

pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and

Rule 72 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges. On February 3, 2023, the Magistrate Judge

issued a Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 34, recommending that Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss, ECF No. 16, be denied as to Plaintiff Kai Ingram’s single claim of retaliation against

Defendant Allen Lynch, and granted as to all other claims. The Magistrate Judge further

recommended that, other than potential claims that may be brought against Defendants Davis and

Milliken, all other claims are to be dismissed with prejudice.

On March 27, 2023, the Court entered a Memorandum Order, adopting the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation and noting that Mr. Ingram had not filed Objections. ECF

No. 39. The Court also adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No.

35, and denied Mr. Ingram’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. ECF No. 39. On April

4, 2023, the Court learned that Mr. Ingram’s Objections were timely postmarked on March 16,

2023, but they did not arrive at the Clerk of Court’s office until April 4, 2023. Mr. Ingram’s

Objections concern the Report and Recommendation on the Motion to Dismiss, but he does not

object to the Report and Recommendation on the Motion for Temporary Restriping Order. The

Court ordered Defendants to file a Response to the Objections, after which the Court would

reconsider its March 27, 2023 Memorandum Order. The Defendants filed their Response to the

Objections on April 19, 2023. ECF No. 44. Following consideration of Mr. Ingram’s Objections

and the Defendants’ Response thereto, the Court will now make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report to which objection was made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Since there were no

Objections filed as to the Report and Recommendation for denial of the Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order, the Court’s March 27, 2023 decision, ECF No. 39, adopting said Report and

Recommendation, is not being reconsidered.

I. Objections

A. Retaliation Claim

Mr. Ingram argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in recommending dismissal of his

retaliation claim against Defendants Morris, Mackey, and LeMasters. Mr. Ingram alleges that

the Defendant officers, Lynch, Morris, Mackey, and LeMasters, retaliated against him, when

they falsely charged him with disciplinary infractions because he had filed a (separate) federal

lawsuit. Mr. Ingram argues that the alleged false disciplinary infractions led to an alleged unfair

disciplinary proceeding, wherein the infractions were upheld. According to Mr. Ingram, the

Parole Board rescinded his automatic reparole date based solely upon the alleged false

disciplinary infractions.

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the retaliation claim is

barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489

(1973). The Magistrate Judge provided an extensive explanation of the Supreme Court case law

concerning Heck. ECF No. 34, at 12-15. Under Heck, if a favorable judgment on Mr. Ingram’s

retaliation claim would “necessarily imply the invalidity” of his disciplinary punishment, his

conviction, his sentence, or the duration of his confinement, the claim must be dismissed. Heck,

512 U.S. at 486-87; Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (extending Heck to prison

disciplinary sanctions). Although the retaliation claim is aimed at allegedly false disciplinary

charges, said charges were affirmed in a disciplinary proceeding, which, according to Mr.

Ingram, was the sole reason the Parole Board rescinded his reparole date. Therefore, if Mr.

Ingram were successful on his retaliation claim concerning the disciplinary charges, it would

necessarily imply that the disciplinary proceeding, upholding the charges, was invalid. Such

would necessarily imply the invalidity of the Parole Board’s decision to rescind Mr. Ingram’s

reparole date. Therefore, Mr. Ingram’s retaliation claim must be dismissed pursuant to Heck and

its progeny. Mr. Ingram’s Objection is overruled.

B. First Amendment Denial of Access to Court

Mr. Ingram objects to the recommendation for dismissal of his access to court claim

against Defendant Lynch. Mr. Ingram does not identify any error in the Magistrate Judge’s

Report; instead, he reasserts the argument he made in response to the Motion to Dismiss. Mr.

Ingram asserts that Lynch violated his right to access the court by depriving Mr. Ingram of the

documents he needed to litigate his case at Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-359. Said Civil Action was

dismissed at the motion to dismiss stage, where a plaintiff may plead a claim without presenting

documents. In that Civil Action, Mr. Ingram simply failed to allege facts sufficient to state a

claim. The absence of documents, therefore, was not dispositive to the dismissal of that case.

Mr. Ingram “cannot claim he was barred from pursing a nonfrivolous, arguable claim” because

he lacked the documents, since his claim would have been dismissed regardless. Henry v.

Moore, 500 F. App’x 115, 117 (3d Cir. 2012). The Court finds no error with the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation. As such, Mr. Ingram’s Objection is overruled.

C. B. Rudzienski

Mr. Ingram objects to the dismissal of claims against B. Rudzienski. B. Rudzienski is the

SCI-Greene Hearing Examiner who determined that Mr. Ingram was guilty of having committed

disciplinary misconducts. Mr. Ingram alleges that said disciplinary charges formed the basis for

the Parole Board’s decision to rescind Mr. Ingram’s reparole date. Mr. Ingram alleges that B.

Rudzienski declined Mr. Ingram’s request that he/she view videotape evidence before rendering

his/her decision. As such, Mr. Ingram asserts that B. Rudzienski denied him due process at his

disciplinary hearing, which violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Magistrate

Judge recommends dismissal of claims against B. Rudzienski, finding said claims barred by

Heck. As discussed above, the Magistrate Judge reasoned that if Mr. Ingram were to prevail on

his claim that his disciplinary proceeding was unlawful and unconstitutional, it would necessarily

imply that the rescission of Mr. Ingram’s reparole date was invalid. Pursuant to Heck and its

progeny, Mr. Ingram’s Fourteenth Amendment claim against B. Rudzienski must be dismissed.

Mr. Ingram’s Objection is overruled.

D. Defendants Guyton, Zaken, Moslak, Sibauda, and Soikerum

Mr. Ingram objects to the dismissal of the above-named Defendants. He argues that each

has shown personal involvement in the complained-of conduct because of their knowledge,

acquiescence, and deliberate indifference. The arguments presented by Mr. Ingram are

essentially the same arguments he presented before the Magistrate Judge. The Court finds no

error with the dismissal of the above-named Defendants. Mr. Ingram’s Objection is overruled.

E. Defendants C/O Davis and C/O Milliken

Mr. Ingram objects to the dismissal of claims against Davis and Milliken. The Magistrate

Judge noted that any purported claim against Davis and Milliken could not be sustained, because

Mr. Ingram did not mention either Defendant in the body of the Complaint. Therefore, the

Magistrate Judge recommends Defendants Davis and Milliken be dismissed, without prejudice,

because Mr. Ingram has failed to plead their personal involvement in the events that give rise to

any of his claims. Mr. Ingram’s Objections state the exact same argument that was presented to

the Magistrate Judge. Mr. Ingram asks the Court to permit him to amend his Complaint to

include the information that he provided in his response to the Motion to Dismiss. As the

Magistrate Judge correctly explained, a “‘pleading may not be amended by a brief in opposition

to a motion to dismiss.’” ECF No. 34, at 19 (quoting Bracken v. County of Allegheny, No. 2:16-

cv-171, 2017 WL 5593451, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2017)). Therefore, Mr. Ingram’s Objection

is overruled.

F. Constitutional Claims against Darr, Zaken, Varner, and Carpenter

Mr. Ingram objects to the dismissal of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims

asserted against the above-named Defendants. He argues that, because the Magistrate Judge

found that Mr. Ingram had established a liberty interest in his reparole date of August 3, 2021,

the claims should not be dismissed. In discussing whether Mr. Ingram had a liberty interest in

his reparole date, the Magistrate Judge merely stated that she would, “accept Ingram’s assertions

[of a liberty interest] for the purposes of deciding Defendants’ motion to dismiss.” ECF No. 34,

at 8 n. 7. Such language, used by the Magistrate Judge in her Report and Recommendation, is

not a ruling or finding of any liberty interest in a reparole date, either in fact or at law. Mr.

Ingram’s Objection is overruled.

G. Final “Objection”

Mr. Ingram’s final “Objection” is a request that “any ruling concerning this claim be

stayed or held in abeyance.” ECF No. 42, at 18. Mr. Ingram states that he has simultaneously

filed a section “2254 Petition along with this objection.” Id. Objections to a Report and

Recommendation is not the proper avenue for requesting a stay or abeyance. Moreover, Mr.

Ingram has provided no sufficient basis to explain why a stay is necessary. His objection is

denied, without prejudice.

II. Conclusion

The Court overrules each of Mr. Ingram’s Objections. The Court accepts the Report and

Recommendation as to the Magistrate Judge’s disposition of each of Mr. Ingram’s claims. The

Court also accepts the Magistrate Judge’s legal analysis, as supplemented herein. The

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be denied as to Mr. Ingram’s retaliation claim against

Defendant Lynch and granted in all other respects.

Accordingly, the following Order is hereby entered.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 17th day of May 2023, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

I. The District Court’s March 27, 2023 Memorandum Order, adopting the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 34, as to Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss is hereby vacated in favor of the within Memorandum Opinion and Order.

II. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 34, filed on February 3, 2023,

providing recommendations as to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, as supplemented by this

Memorandum Opinion addressing Plaintiff’s Objections, is adopted as the Opinion of this Court.

III. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 16, is DENIED in part and GRANTED

in part.

A. The Motion is Denied as to Mr. Ingram’s retaliation claim against individual

Defendant Allen Lynch.

B. The Motion is Granted as to all remaining claims and Defendants as follows:

1. All claims asserted against all Defendants in their official capacity

are dismissed, with prejudice.

2. Plaintiff’s claims, as asserted in his Complaint as First Amendment

retaliation claims and Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and

Fourteenth Amendment due process claims, based upon the alleged

issuance of a false misconduct, an unfair disciplinary proceeding, and the

rescission of Mr. Ingram’s automatic reparole, are dismissed, with

prejudice.

3. Plaintiff’s First Amendment access-to-court claim, asserted against

Lynch, is dismissed, with prejudice.

4. Defendants Davis and Milliken are dismissed from this action,

without prejudice.

5. Leave to amend the Complaint is granted, but only as to claims Mr.

Ingram may successfully plead against Davis or Milliken.

6. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint on or before

July 3, 2023. If no amended complaint is filed by July 3, 2023,

Defendant Lynch shall file an Answer to the remaining retaliation claim

against Lynch.

This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

_s/Marilyn J. Horan

Marilyn J. Horan

United States District Judge

cc: Kai D. Ingram, pro se

HC8003

SCI-GREENE

169 PROGRESS DRIVE

WAYNESBURG, PA 15370