# Williamson v. Wetzel

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · November 18, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10743471

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 18, 2024
- **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/10743471

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that retaliatory misconduct charge failed because there was a quantum of evidence indicating that plaintiff committed underlying misconduct
- noting that plaintiff alleging civil rights violation based on exposure to asbestos must allege physical injury

## Opinion text

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 regarding
the conditions of confinement in Huntingdon State Correctional Institution (“SCI-
Huntingdon”). The case was originally filed as a putative class action by three
individual defendants on behalf of a class of SCI-Huntingdon inmates. After the
court dismissed the class complaint and granted the remaining individual plaintiffs,
Bobby Kenneth Williamson and Antonio Bundy,1 leave to amend their individual
claims, they filed two separate amended complaints. After screening the amended
complaints, we will dismiss Williamson’s complaint in part and dismiss Bundy’s
complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.

1 A third plaintiff, Nicholas Edwards, was dismissed from the case for failure
to pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 17).
I. Factual Background & Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed their putative class action complaint on September 28, 2023, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1).
The case was transferred to this district on October 30, 2023. (Doc. 3).
We dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted on May 20, 2024. (Docs. 19-20). We reasoned that class
certification was clearly inappropriate because pro se prisoners cannot represent
the interests of other prisoners in a class action. (Doc. 19 at 4-5). We then
concluded that absent the allegations on behalf of the putative class, plaintiffs’
individual claims were not stated with sufficient factual detail to satisfy the pleading

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (Id. at 5-6). We granted
plaintiffs leave to amend solely with respect to their individual claims. (Doc. 20 at
1). Williamson filed an amended complaint on September 17, 2024. (Doc. 27).
Bundy filed a separate amended complaint on September 23, 2024. (Doc. 30).
A. Williamson’s Amended Complaint
According to the allegations in Williamson’s amended complaint, he has been

incarcerated in SCI-Huntingdon since December 2020. (Doc. 27 ¶ 1). The
complaint alleges that SCI-Huntingdon’s infrastructure is deteriorating due to its
age and its proximity to the Juniata River. (Id. ¶¶ 22-23).
Williams’s primary claims for relief relate to his alleged exposure to asbestos.
The complaint alleges that sometime in the middle of 2021, shortly after the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”) eased COVID-19 restrictions,
defendant Rivello, SCI-Huntingdon’s superintendent, issued a memorandum
approving crews of SCI-Huntingdon employees and inmate maintenance workers
to begin renovations in the prison, which included removal of asbestos, lead paint,
and mold. (Id. ¶¶ 55-57). The prison’s facility maintenance manager, who is named

in the complaint as a John Doe defendant, purportedly failed to display signs
warning of the presence of asbestos during these renovations. (Id. ¶ 64). The
facility maintenance manager allegedly failed to properly dispose of asbestos during
the renovations. (Id. ¶ 65).
Pursuant to the orders of Rivello, the facility maintenance manager, and
defendant Holms, the prison’s maintenance supervisor, defendants Banks, Price,
and McMullen allegedly began a process of “scrap[ing] and paint[ing]” Williamson’s

housing unit. (Id. ¶ 67). During this process, a crew supervised by Holms allegedly
scraped material containing asbestos and lead paint from the walls of
approximately five to ten cells in the housing unit. (Id. ¶ 68). Holms purportedly
failed to post asbestos warning signs while the work was being done. (Id. ¶ 69).
There was also purportedly no ventilation or filtration system in place to remove
asbestos from the air. (Id. ¶ 70). Defendant Davis, the prison’s correctional health

care administrator, allegedly observed the conditions of the unit every day while the
work was being done, because his office was located at the back of the housing unit.
(Id. ¶ 73). The complaint alleges that Holms allowed workers to continue wearing
the clothes they wore to remove asbestos as they moved throughout the unit, which
purportedly led to additional asbestos exposure for Williamson and other inmates in
the unit. (Id. ¶ 78). The exposure allegedly caused Williamson to experience
breathing difficulties and nosebleeds. (Id. ¶¶ 77-78).
The amended complaint alleges that on July 10, 2023, the facility
maintenance manager installed six “large semi-industrial size fans” on Williamson’s
housing unit, but did not evacuate the unit prior to the installation, which resulted

in Williamson being exposed to asbestos. (Id. ¶¶ 80-82). The facility maintenance
manager also purportedly turned on the fans without first clearing the air of
asbestos, which led to additional exposure. (Id. ¶ 82). This exposure purportedly
caused unspecified injuries to Williamson’s skin, eyes, and nose. (Id. ¶ 83).
The amended complaint asserts that Williamson was exposed to asbestos
again on February 22, 2024, when workers drilled holes in the wall of his housing
unit and did not take preventative steps to stop the spread of asbestos in the unit.

(Id. ¶ 115). Williamson purportedly inhaled asbestos during this process. (Id. ¶¶
118-26). He requested medical attention and was treated by Gabriel Nalley, a
physician’s assistant in the prison. (Id. ¶ 127). Nalley diagnosed him with swelling
in his nostrils and prescribed a nasal spray. (Id.) Nalley also purportedly noticed
debris in Williamson’s eye and referred him for an appointment with an
ophthalmologist. (Id. ¶¶ 129-30). The ophthalmologist subsequently diagnosed

Williamson as having damage in both eyes and prescribed him eye drops. (Id. ¶¶
131-33). The complaint asserts that Defendant Rivello destroyed video footage of
the February 22, 2024, incident. (Id. ¶ 134).
The amended complaint also asserts that Williamson has been exposed to
harmful lead paint and black mold. (See generally id. ¶¶ 31-35, 40-54, 90-94).
Williamson alleges that moisture in his cell has caused black mold to grow on and
around the toilet. (Id. ¶¶ 31-32, 35). Defendant Price, a correctional officer in the
prison, purportedly tried to remove the mold from the cell by spraying a solution on
it in May 2023, but this solution purportedly was not effective. (Id. ¶¶ 85-86). The
complaint avers that as of September 10, 2024, Williamson continues to have mold

in his cell that “affect[s]” his “breathing and ability to smell.” (Id. ¶ 87). Sometime
after this date, defendant McMullen purportedly submitted a work order for
Williamson’s housing unit to be “scrapped and repainted” in an effort to remove the
black mold. (Id. ¶ 90). The amended complaint does not state whether this work
has been completed or whether it successfully removed the black mold.
In addition to the specific claims of wrongdoing by defendants Rivello,
Banks, Price, McMullen, Holms, and the facility maintenance manager, the

amended complaint alleges in conclusory fashion that several supervisory
defendants failed to implement policies and procedures to mitigate the presence of
asbestos, lead paint, and mold in the prison. (See generally id. ¶¶ 40-54, 91-94).
Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that: (1) the correctional institutional
safety manager failed to develop a “local respiratory protected program procedure”;
(2) Rivello failed to implement a “local confined space program”; (3) the facility

maintenance manager “failed to supervise confined space entrance”; (4) the chief of
the safety and environmental protection division “failed to maintain employee
safety and occupational health features relative to asbestos. . .”; (5) the chief of the
safety and environmental protection division “failed to consult” and “failed to
coordinate” with the heads of other departments regarding asbestos safety; (6)
Rivello “failed to maintain overall responsibility” for lead paint removal; (7) Rivello
and the facility maintenance manager failed to take sufficient steps to test materials
for the presence of lead paint; (8) all defendants failed to submit “an extraordinary
occurrence report” regarding Williamson’s exposure to asbestos; (9) the chief of the
safety and environmental protection division “failed to maintain employee safety

and occupational health features relative to asbestos containing material”; (9)
defendant Wetzel, the former superintendent of the DOC, eliminated an “asbestos
abatement program” that the DOC previously implemented; and (10) defendant
Kauffman, SCI-Huntingdon’s former superintendent, likewise eliminated the
asbestos abatement program at SCI-Huntingdon. (Id. ¶¶ 42-53, 91-93).
The amended complaint alleges that after this case was filed, Williamson
mailed “pipe wrappings containing asbestos” to the Eastern District. (Id. ¶ 108).

Shortly after learning about this, SCI-Huntingdon officials allegedly placed him in
the prison’s Restricted Housing Unit (“RHU”) and charged him with misconduct for
misuse of the mail and sending hazardous materials through the mail. (Id. ¶¶ 111-
12). The misconduct charges were referred to a hearing examiner, who found
Williamson guilty of the charges and sentenced him to 60 days in the RHU. (Id. ¶
177). The amended complaint avers that the charges were brought in retaliation for

Williamson litigating this case. (Id. ¶¶ 173-80).
Williamson’s amended complaint asserts state law claims for negligence and
negligent supervision, deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth
Amendment, and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (Id. ¶¶ 136-80).
He seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 25).
B. Bundy’s Amended Complaint
According to Bundy’s amended complaint, he was first transferred to SCI-
Huntingdon in 2020. (Doc. 30 ¶ 1). The amended complaint alleges in conclusory

fashion that the prison lacks sufficient ventilation, that there is black mold and
asbestos in the prison, that officials retaliated against him for filing this case, that
water in the prison is contaminated with bacteria and chemicals, that the prison’s
infrastructure is collapsing, that officials did not respond quickly enough to a fire in
2020, and that the prison is infested with rats, mice, and other vermin. (Id. ¶¶ 2-33).
The amended complaint does not name any defendants, nor does it allege that any
individuals were aware of the conditions of Bundy’s confinement. (See id.)
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 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 id.

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)).

A defendant cannot be liable for a violation of a plaintiff’s civil rights unless
the defendant was personally involved in the violation. Jutrowski v. Twp. of
Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280, 289 (3d Cir. 2018). The defendant’s personal involvement
cannot be based solely on a theory of respondeat superior. Rode v. Dellarciprete,
845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). Rather, for a supervisor to be liable for the
actions of a subordinate, there must be allegations of personal direction or actual

knowledge and acquiescence. Id.
Having reviewed Williamson and Bundy’s amended complaints pursuant to
the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, we will
dismiss Williamson’s amended complaint in part and dismiss Bundy’s complaint in
its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.4
A. Williamson’s Amended Complaint

Williamson’s amended complaint asserts civil rights and state tort claims
based on his alleged exposure to asbestos, lead paint, and mold. (Doc. 27). He
additionally asserts a claim that defendant Rivello retaliated against him—for
mailing pipe wrappings containing asbestos from his institution—by filing
misconduct charges against him. (Id.) Several defendants are sued in both their
individual and official capacities, while others are sued in only one capacity. (See
id. ¶¶ 2-27).

1. Official Capacity Claims
At the outset, we will dismiss all official capacity claims based on defendants’
sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. DOC employees sued in their
official capacities are entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh
Amendment from claims for damages brought pursuant to Section 1983. Downey v.
Pa. Dep’t of Corrs., 968 F.3d 299, 310-11 (3d Cir. 2020).

2. Deliberate Indifference
Turning to the individual capacity claims, we first find that Williamson’s
amended complaint states a claim for deliberate indifference in violation of the
Eighth Amendment based on his exposure to asbestos, lead paint, and black mold.

4 The court has screened the amended complaints in the same opinion rather
than severing them into separate lawsuits in the interest of judicial economy.
The amended complaint alleges that defendants Rivello, Banks, Price, McMullen,
Holms, and the facility maintenance manager conducted several renovation
projects in Williamson’s housing block that caused him to be directly exposed to

these harmful materials and did not take sufficient steps to prevent the exposure.
Williamson also alleges that he suffered physical injuries from this exposure in the
form of breathing difficulties, nosebleeds, and damage to his eyes. See, e.g.,
Fontroy v. Owens, 150 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting that plaintiff alleging civil
rights violation based on exposure to asbestos must allege physical injury); see also
Gonzalez v. De Lasalle, 703 F. App’x 62, 68 n.5 (3d Cir. 2017) (nonprecedential)5
(noting that Eighth Amendment claim based on exposure to lead paint requires

proof that the lead paint posed a risk of physical harm to plaintiff). Liberally
construing these allegations, as we must, we find that Williamson has adequately
pleaded a claim for deliberate indifference.
Williamson’s deliberate indifference claim, however, will only be allowed to
proceed against Rivello, Banks, Price, McMullen, Holms, and the facility
maintenance manager, because the amended complaint fails to allege the personal

involvement of any other defendants. All other defendants are either not
mentioned in the amended complaint’s factual allegations or are only mentioned in
conclusory statements of policies and procedures that they purportedly failed to
implement. (See Doc. 27 ¶¶ 42-53, 91-93). It is not alleged how these purported

5 The court acknowledges that nonprecedential decisions are not binding
upon federal district courts. Citations to nonprecedential decisions reflect that the
court has carefully considered and is persuaded by the panel’s ratio decidendi.
policy failures caused Williamson harm, nor is it alleged that the other defendants
personally directed or acquiesced in the alleged civil rights violations committed by
Rivello, Banks, Price, McMullen, Holms, and the facility maintenance manager.

See Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207. Allegations that defendants held supervisory roles in
the DOC or SCI-Huntingdon are not by themselves sufficient to allege personal
involvement, see id., and the amended complaint does not advance any other basis
to establish the other defendants’ personal involvement. The deliberate
indifference claim will accordingly proceed solely against defendants Rivello,
Banks, Price, McMullen, Holms, and the facility maintenance manager.
3. Negligence

Williamson’s amended complaint asserts individual capacity negligence
claims against defendants Bickell, Brown, Rivello, Woods, Holms, Ferguson, and
the project manager. (See Doc. 27 ¶¶ 2-27). To state a claim for negligence under
Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the defendant owed him a duty of
care; (2) that the defendant breached the duty; (3) that the defendant’s breach
caused the plaintiff injury; and (4) that the plaintiff suffered actual loss or damage

as a result. Brewington ex rel. Brewington v. City of Philadelphia, 199 A.3d 348, 355
(Pa. 2018)
Williamson’s negligence claims against Rivello and Holms will be allowed to
proceed for essentially the same reasons we allowed the deliberate indifference
claim against those defendants to proceed. The negligence claims against all other
defendants will be dismissed. There are no allegations of any direct actions by
defendants Bickell, Brown, Woods, Ferguson, or the project manager that breached
a duty of care to plaintiff. The only action that any of these defendants allegedly
took was defendants Bickell and Brown transferring Williamson to SCI-
Huntingdon, (see Doc. 27 ¶ 96), and it is not alleged that Bickell and Brown knew or

should have known that such a transfer would cause Williamson to be exposed to
asbestos, lead paint, or black mold.
There are also no allegations supporting liability on a theory of respondeat
superior. Defendants Bickell, Brown, Wood, Ferguson and the project manager
allegedly hold the professional roles of deputy secretary of institutional operations
for the DOC, director of the office of population management for the DOC, sergeant
in SCI-Huntingdon, director of population management, and project manager,

respectively. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5, 14, 19, 21). It is not clear from the defendants’ roles or job
descriptions that they had supervisory authority over any of the projects that
purportedly exposed Williamson to harmful materials, and the amended complaint
does not include any additional allegations to establish such supervisory authority.
Hence, Williamson’s negligence claim will be dismissed except to the extent that it
is brought against defendants Rivello and Holms in their individual capacities.

4. Retaliation
Williamson’s final claim alleges that defendant Rivello retaliated against him
in violation of the First Amendment by initiating misconduct charges against him
for mailing “pipe wrappings containing asbestos” to the Eastern District. (Doc. 27
¶¶ 173-80). This claim plainly fails. It is clear from the amended complaint that
Williamson committed the charged misconduct of mailing the pipe wrappings.
Retaliatory misconduct claims fail when there is some evidence that the plaintiff
committed the underlying infraction. See, e.g., Nifas v. Beard, 374 F. App’x 241, 244
(3d Cir. 2010) (nonprecedential) (holding that retaliatory misconduct claim fails
when there is some evidence to support the misconduct charge); Carter v. McGrady,

292 F.3d 152, 159 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that retaliatory misconduct charge failed
because there was a quantum of evidence indicating that plaintiff committed
underlying misconduct).
B. Bundy’s Amended Complaint
Bundy’s amended complaint will be dismissed. The complaint does not
name any defendants or even mention any individuals who could be liberally
construed as defendants. (See Doc. 30). Given this complete absence of any

allegations of personal involvement, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
C. Leave to Amend
Before dismissing civil rights claims for failure to state a claim, courts must
permit a curative amendment unless the amendment would be inequitable or futile.
Phillips v. Allegheny Cty., 515 F.3d 224, 245 (3d Cir. 2008). We will deny leave to

amend the dismissed claims as futile. Both plaintiffs have had multiple
opportunities to plead their dismissed claims in a manner that states a claim upon
which relief may be granted and have failed to do so.
IV. Conclusion
We will dismiss Williamson’s amended complaint in part and Bundy’s
amended complaint in its entirety without further leave to amend 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. The case will be allowed to proceed solely with respect to
Williamson’s deliberate indifference claim against Rivello, Banks, Price, McMullen,
Holms, and the facility maintenance manager and Williamson’s negligence claim

against defendants Rivello and Holms. The Clerk of Court will be directed to serve
the remaining defendants with copies of Williamson’s amended complaint. An
appropriate order shall issue.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania

Dated: November 18, 2024

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10743471. Public record. Not legal advice.