Wilkins v. Harry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MAURICE WILKINS,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-cv-02026

V. (SaPorrto, J.)

LAUREL HARRY, e¢ al,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Maurice Wilkins, incarcerated at SCI-Huntingdon,

proceeds on First and Eighth Amendment claims against two dieticians

from the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) for denying him a medically

necessary diet to accommodate his Celiac disease. Defendants move to

dismiss the complaint in part. (Doc. 13). For the reasons described herein,

the Court will deny defendants’ motion and order them to file a further

response to Wilkins’s request for preliminary injunctive relief.

I. BACKGROUND

Wilkins alleges that he has celiac disease and has required a gluten-

free and corn-free diet for many years. As described in his complaint and

attachments!, he has been in ongoing disagreement with various DOC

employees regarding his diet. In 2022, in a previous case in this district,

Wilkins reached a settlement with a DOC dietician, Anne Brown, on an

Eighth Amendment claim for denial of a medically adequate diet. See

Wilkins v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-00540 (M. D. Pa.) (Docs. 66, 67, 72, 73). In

February 2024, he submitted a grievance alleging that a kitchen

supervisor, “Mrs. Beck,” ordered an inmate working in the kitchen to

“pour corn juice” on Wilkins’s food tray, and “fired” the inmate when he

refused to do so. In March and April 2024, he complained to Craig

Copper, Chief of the DOC’s Food Services Division. Wilkins wrote that

after a recent “refresh” of the prison menu, he repeatedly pointed out

meals on the new “diet menu” that conflicted with his diet. Although

some of these items were removed, “there were still some conflicts on the

menu.” In addition, some foods within his diet were removed and replaced

with what he viewed as inferior substitutes. He claimed that Brown, the

1 Wilkins provided additional allegations and evidence with his

brief opposing the motion to dismiss. However, any new facts are not

considered in evaluating the sufficiency of his complaint. See Hughes v.

United Parcel Serv., Inc., 639 F. Appx 99, 104 (8d Cir. 2016) (“[T]he

complaint may not be amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to

dismiss.”).

-2-

dietician, was “using food as a punishment” for his complaints.

On May 20, 2024, Wilkins was told that his diet would not be

“renewed” by the prison dieticians, because he bought items from the

commissary that conflicted with his diet and refused to sign a DC-465-C

form. The DC-465-C form requires inmates receiving a “therapeutic diet”

to agree not to take more than the prescribed amount of food, give away

the food, or receive food not prescribed by the diet, among other rules. In

the version of the form presented to Wilkins, he was asked to stipulate

that any purchase of commissary items outside of his diet “shows [he]

does not want to be on a therapeutic diet,” and that he would be presumed

to have eaten that food. See (Doc. 1-1 at 7). Wilkins refused to sign,

because he wanted to be able to buy food for the purpose of selling or

trading it. Wilkins alleges that other inmates on therapeutic diets “buy

commissary not aligned with their diet,” and are not “harassed” or denied

their prescribed diet.

The Court permitted Wilkins to proceed on First Amendment

retaliation claims, and Eighth Amendment claims premised on denial of

a nutritionally adequate diet, against two dieticians, Ms. Miller and Ms.

Wilson. See (Doc. 8). Defendants now move to dismiss the retaliation

«Sin

claims, arguing that Wilkins has not plausibly alleged that his

complaints caused them to revoke his diet.

II. MOTION To DISMISS

“Under Rule 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss may be granted only if,

accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and

viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court finds the

plaintiff’s claims lack facial plausibility.” Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen

Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)). In deciding the motion, the Court may

consider the facts alleged on the face of the complaint, as well as

“documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of

which a court may take judicial notice.” Jellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues &

Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). Although the Court must accept

the fact allegations in the complaint as true, it is not compelled to accept

“unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences, or a legal

conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d

160, 165 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d 187, 195

(3d Cir. 2007)).

To state a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation, a

_4-

plaintiff must show that (1) he was engaged in constitutionally protected

conduct, (2) he suffered an “adverse action” by prison officials sufficient

to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his First

Amendment rights, and (3) the plaintiff's protected conduct was a

“substantial or motivating factor” in the prison officials’ decision to take

the adverse action. Wisniewski v. Fisher, 857 F.3d 152, 156 (3d Cir. 2017)

(citations and quotations omitted). Typically, the plaintiff must show

“unusually suggestive temporal proximity between the protected activity

and the allegedly retaliatory action,” or “a pattern of antagonism coupled

with timing to establish a causal link.” Watson v. Rozum, 834 F.3d 417,

424 (3d Cir. 2016). In some cases, causation can be established “from the

evidence gleaned from the record as a whole.” /d.

Defendants concede that the first two elements are satisfied here,

because non-frivolous grievances and lawsuits are protected conduct and

the denial of a nutritionally adequate diet is an adverse action for

purposes of a retaliation claim. However, they argue that Wilkins has not

plausibly alleged causation, because the grievances in question were only

“tangentially related to his medical diet” and Miller and Wilson lacked

“motive” to retaliate against him because their names were not

«Bs

mentioned in the prior complaints. See (Doc. 14 at 7-11).

The Court disagrees. Wilkins’s complaints did directly concern the

prison’s observance of his medical diet. The complaint about “corn juice”

was relevant because Wilkins allegedly has a corn allergy, and Wilkins

directly questioned whether the diet was being enforced because the

prison failed to “investigate” his allegations that Mrs. Beck had tried to

add corn byproduct to his food. His letters to Copper? alleged that he was

continually being served meals that conflicted with his diet even after he

repeatedly “pointed out [the] conflict meals.”

Although these complaints did not identify Miller or Wilson by

name, Wilkins’s allegations plausibly suggest that causation could be

established “from the record as a whole.” Watson, 834 F.3d at 424.

Wilkins alleges that Miller and Wilson “are the State Dieticians and they

oversee nutritional standards for [the DOC] and create diet menus.”

? Defendants do not appear to dispute that the letters to Copper,

and the underlying complaints described therein, are among the

protected activity, even though they were not submitted through the

grievance process. See Mack v. Warden Loretto FCI, 839 F.3d 286, 298-99

(3d Cir. 2016) (“In this context, form is secondary to content ... Mack’s

oral grievance sufficiently and timely put prison officials on notice that

he was seeking redress, was conveyed to prison officials in a reasonable

manner, and concerned conduct that the prison itself prohibits.”).

«i Bc

Although his written correspondence attached to the complaint identified

Brown as “the dietician,” his ongoing complaints about the menu, as he

describes them, would have directly implicated Miller and Wilson.

Within two months of his complaints to Copper, Wilkins was

allegedly asked to sign a DC-465-C form to maintain a therapeutic diet

that he had repeatedly been medically qualified to receive, while other

inmates who bought non-compliant commissary items were not removed

from their diets. He alleges that he has celiac disease, for which there is

“no cure” and “the only treatment required is a lifelong gluten-free diet,”

which would undermine any medical justification for removing him from

the diet. Making all reasonable inferences in Wilkins’s favor, as required

at the pleading stage, Wilkins plausibly alleges that his protected activity

was a “substantial or motivating factor” in the dieticians’ revocation of

his therapeutic diet.

WGilne ww wiv of the decision to remove him from the diet

on May 20, 2024, but the precise date he was asked to sign the form is

unclear.

4 See (Doc. 1-4 at 4, 11) (apparent excerpts from medical

publications describing the symptoms and treatment of celiac disease).

s Vs

III. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Wilkins also requested preliminary injunctive relief, and the Court

ordered defendants to respond separately to this request.> Preliminary

injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy,” for which the movant

“must establish entitlement to relief by clear evidence.” Doe by & through

Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist., 897 F.3d 518, 526 (3d Cir. 2018). Ona

request for preliminary injunctive relief, courts consider four factors: (1)

whether there is a “reasonable probability” of success on the merits, (2)

whether denial would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff, (3) whether

the relief would cause greater harm to the non-moving party, and (4)

whether the relief would be in the public interest. See Amalgamated

Transit Union Loc. 85 v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty., 39 F.4th 95, 102-

03 (3d Cir. 2022). The first two factors are “prerequisites that the moving

party must establish.” Jd. (citing Greater Phila. Chamber of Com. v. City

of Phila., 949 F.3d 116, 133 (3d Cir. 2020)). These two factors “are

correlative: that is, the weaker the merits showing, the more will be

5 Defendants argue that the request must be deemed withdrawn

pursuant to Local Rule 7.5 because it was not accompanied by a brief in

support. However, Local Rule 7.5 applies to “motions,” and Wilkins’s

request was not filed as a motion. The document defendants refer to as

Wilkins’s “motion” was a proposed order. See (Doc. 5).

-8-

required on the showing of irreparable harm, and vice versa.” Camacho

Lopez v. Lowe, 452 F. Supp. 3d 150, 163 (M.D. Pa. 2020) (citations

omitted). “[A] showing of irreparable harm is insufficient if the harm will

occur only in the indefinite future. Rather, the moving party must make

a clear showing of immediate irreparable harm.” Wesley v. Secy

Pennsylvania Dept of Corr, 569 F. App’x 123, 125 (8d Cir. 2014)

(emphasis in original) (quoting Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, Inc., 977

F.2d 86, 91 (3d Cir. 1992)).

Defendants argue that “because [Wilkins] has failed to file a

supporting brief, he has not produced the required, sufficient evidence to

satisfy the essential elements of his underlying causes of action.”

However, the evidence attached to Wilkins’s complaint indicates as

follows:

e Celiac disease causes inflammation of the small intestine

from the consumption of gluten, and “[pJeople with Celiac

disease cannot tolerate gluten.” There is no recognized cure,

and treatment requires “a lifelong gluten-free diet.” (Doc. 1-4

at 2, 11).

e Prison medical staff “confirmed” Wilkins’s diagnosis of Celiac

disease in May 2020, and he was prescribed a “Gluten Free,

No Corn diet.” (Doc. 1-5 at 10).

e Wilkins’s diet order was “renewed,” in some form, as recently

as April 12, 2024. See (Doc. 1-2 at 5).

e At some point before May 20, 2024, Wilkins was asked to sign

a DC-465-C form, which required him to stipulate that any

purchase of commissary items outside of his diet “shows [he]

does not want to be on a therapeutic diet,” and that he would

be presumed to have eaten that food. See (Doc. 1-1 at 7).

e Wilkins told the medical staff he was not consuming any

forbidden food, but he was buying food to exchange for

additional diet-complaint food. (Doc. 1-2 at 2). However, the

diet was “stopped . . . by the Dietician at Central Office” “when

[Wilkins] refused to sign a DC-465-C.” (Doc. 1-1 at 2); see also

(Doc. 1-2 at 10) (‘When inmates refuse to sign for the rules

associated with their diet and continue to purchase items that

contradict the special diet, they will be removed.”).

e Defendants will not permit Wilkins to resume the diet unless

he signs the DC-465-C form. (Doc. 1-2 at 5).

we YG

e The record lacks any evidence that Wilkins’s medical

condition has changed, or any evidence contradicting

Wilkins’s claim that he sold, but never consumed, the non-

compliant food.

Defendants argue that Wilkins has not made the required showing

of “immediate” irreparable harm. In grievances after the revocation of his

diet, Wilkins indicated that he was not eating the food served to him

because of the “future health risks of intestinal damage and GI cancers.”

(Doc. 1-2 at 2-3, 9; see also Doc. 1-1 at 2). Such risks of future harm would

not themselves justify preliminary injunctive relief. But while

defendants infer that Wilkins is not suffering any present harm, the

record suggests that is at least in part because he is not eating the foods

being served to him and is instead suffering “lack of nutrition.” See (Doc.

1-1 at 2; Doc. 1-2 at 5); see, e.g., Pineida v. Lee, No. 12-CV-01171-JST,

2014 WL 4802745, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014) (granting

preliminary injunction to inmate with Celiac disease where the prison

diet “requireld him] to choose between either eating foods that cause him

pain [and/or] discomfort, or going hungry”).

For these reasons, defendants will be ordered to file a supplemental

-

response. The response should address the following issues:

e If defendants contend that a prison inmate’s medically

necessary diet can be revoked for violation of commissary

rules, or for failure to sign the DC-465-C form, defendants

should provide legal authority supporting that position.

e Separately, if defendants contend that Wilkins does not

medically require a therapeutic diet, the response should

explain the basis for that position given the evidence

described above.

e Ifdefendants contend that Wilkins is not suffering immediate

irreparable harm from his present diet due to his Celiac

disease, the response should explain the basis for that

position with reference to appropriate evidence and legal

authority.

An appropriate order follows.

Dated: April 4, 2025 s/Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.

JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.

United States District Judge

-12-