The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EUGENIO ANDINO-HERNANDEZ, :
Plaintiff : CIV. ACTION NO. 3:21-CV-1570
v. : (JUDGE MANNION)
MS. MASON, et al., :
Defendants :
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the court in this prisoner civil rights case is
defendants’, Torres, Martin, Gavala, Derr, and Matrey, second motion for
summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for summary
judgment will be granted and the matter terminated.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Eugenio Andino-Hernandez, an inmate in Mahanoy State
Correctional Institution (“SCI-Mahanoy”), who was incarcerated in that prison
during the events at issue in this case, brings the instant case pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983. (Doc. 1). Andino-Hernandez alleges Eighth Amendment,
Fourteenth Amendment, and ADA violations from two separate incidents that
occurred at SCI-Mahanoy. (Id.) Specifically, Andino-Hernandez claims that
on October 19, 2019, he was moved to Cell #2 in the restricted housing unit
(“RHU”) at SCI-Mahanoy. (Id. at 8). He alleges that, although he had “bottom
bunk status” due to having an I.V.C. Filter in his Vena Cava Vein, he was
instructed to enter the cell with another inmate who already occupied the
bottom bunk. (Id. at 8-9). Shortly thereafter, Andino-Hernandez fell while
dismounting the top bunk. (Id.) He claims the nurse and staff failed to provide
immediate medical treatment following his fall. (Id.)
Several months later, on February 24, 2020, Andino-Hernandez
alleges he was forced to use a non-handicap shower over his objections and
fell, hitting his lower back on the shower step. (Id. at 18). Andino-Hernandez
files the instant action seeking compensatory and punitive damages for “the
injuries sustained and suffered” as a result of defendants' “medical
indifference and negligence, in violation of Eighth Amendment, Americans
with Disabilities Act and Medical Professionalism.” (Id. at 25).
On March 24, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants’ motions to dismiss, dismissing the complaint to the extent that it
asserted claims for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need,
violation of the ADA, or violation of state law, but allowing Andino-
Hernandez’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim to proceed.
(Docs. 38-39). Defendants Correct Care Solutions, Wellpath LLC, Williams,
O’Brien, Baddick, and Bora (“medical defendants”) answered the complaint
on April 13, 2023. (Doc. 40). Defendants Mason, White, Stetler, Steinhart,
Brown, Beury, Matrey, Burger, Torres, Derr, Taylor, Gavala, Martin, Hauser,
Jankowski, Krill, Long, and Ramer (“corrections defendants”) answered the
complaint on April 28, 2023. (Doc. 41).
Andino-Hernandez filed a motion to compel discovery on February 6,
2024. (Doc. 62). The corrections defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment on February 27, 2024, arguing that they are entitled to summary
judgment because Andino-Hernandez failed to exhaust administrative
remedies with respect to his claim arising from his fall from a top bunk. (Docs.
66-67). The corrections defendants additionally argued that defendants
Nurse Alicia, Rammer, Hauser, Matrey, Steinhart, White, Taylor, Stetler,
Nurse Jackie, Nurse Tina, and Mason are entitled to summary judgment
because they were not personally involved in Andino-Hernandez’s remaining
claims. (Id.) The medical defendants then moved for summary judgment on
March 28, 2024. (Docs. 71, 73).
Andino-Hernandez filed a brief responding to the motions for summary
judgment on May 10, 2024. (Doc. 78). Andino-Hernandez conceded that
summary judgment is appropriate as to Hauser, Matrey, Jackie, Tina, Stetler,
Mason, Taylor, White, Alicia, Ramer, Steinhart, Rodgers, Baddick, O’Brien,
Bora, and Williams, but he opposed the corrections defendants’ motion to
the extent that it seeks summary judgment for his purported failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. (Id.) After review of all briefs and submitted
materials, the court granted corrections defendants motion for summary
judgment in-part, particularly in favor of all defendants other than Torres,
Martin, Gavala, Derr, and Matrey (“the remaining corrections defendants”),
and found that corrections defendants failed to address plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claims arising from the February 24, 2020 shower fall (the
“shower fall claim”). (Docs. 81-82). Accordingly, the court granted the
corrections defendants leave to file a second motion for summary judgment
with respect to the shower fall claim—the instant motion before this court.
(Doc. 84). Along with their motion, the corrections defendants submit a brief
in support thereof and a statement of facts. (Docs. 85 and 86). Plaintiff
responds with a brief in opposition thereof and a responsive statement of
facts. (Docs. 92 and 93). With the corrections defendants’ reply brief received
on March 11, 2025, (Doc. 96), the second motion for summary judgment is
now ripe for review.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, the discovery
[including, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file]
and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Turner v. Schering-Plough Corp.,
901 F.2d 335, 340 (3d Cir. 1990). A factual dispute is genuine if a reasonable
jury could find for the non-moving party, and is material if it will affect the
outcome of the case under governing substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ericksen,
903 F. Supp. 836, 838 (M.D. Pa. 1995). At the summary judgment stage,
“the judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the
truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249; see also Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d
241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (a court may not weigh the evidence or make
credibility determinations). The court must consider all evidence and
inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. Andreoli v. Gates, 482 F.3d 641, 647 (3d Cir. 2007).
To prevail on summary judgment, the moving party must affirmatively
identify those portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. The moving party
can discharge that burden by showing that “on all the essential elements of
its case on which it bears the burden of proof at trial, no reasonable jury could
find for the non-moving party.” In re Bressman, 327 F.3d 229, 238 (3d Cir.
2003); see also Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. If the moving party meets this initial
burden, the non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is
some metaphysical doubt as to material facts,” but must show sufficient
evidence to support a jury verdict in its favor. Boyle v. County of Allegheny,
139 F.3d 386, 393 (3d Cir. 1998) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). However, if the non-moving
party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
element essential to [the non-movant’s] case, and on which [the non-movant]
will bear the burden of proof at trial,” Rule 56 mandates the entry of summary
judgment because such a failure “necessarily renders all other facts
immaterial.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23; Jakimas v. Hoffman-La
Roche, Inc., 485 F.3d 770, 777 (3d Cir. 2007).
III. DISCUSSION
Corrections defendants contend that the court should enter summary
judgment in their favor on the shower fall claim because Andino-Hernandez
failed to administratively exhaust that claim. (Doc. 96 at 3). Exhaustion of
administrative remedies in the DOC is governed by the three-step process
outlined in the DOC’s grievance policy, DC-ADM 804. (See Doc. 67-1 at 7-
41). Under DC-ADM 804, a prisoner must first submit a written grievance
within fifteen working days from the date of the incident. Id. §1(A)(8). DC-
ADM 804 provides that the grievance must include “a statement of the facts
relevant to the claim,” “identify individuals directly involved in the events,”
and “specifically state any claims [the inmate] wishes to make concerning
violations of Department directives, regulations, court orders, or other law.”
Id. §1(A)(11). Next, the prisoner must submit a written appeal to an
intermediate review level within fifteen working days. Id. §2(A)(1)(a). Finally,
the inmate must submit an appeal to the Secretary’s Office of Inmate
Grievances and Appeals (“SOIGA”) within fifteen working days. Id.
§2(B)(1)(b).
Andino-Hernandez filed grievance no. 853835, which mentions the
shower fall, on March 5, 2020. (See Doc. 86 ¶ 10 and Doc. 93 ¶ 10). Andino-
Hernandez then appealed the Facility Grievance Coordinator’s response to
that grievance to the Facility Manager, but did not appeal the Facility
Manager’s decision to SOIGA within the fifteen working day window provided
by DCM 804. (See Doc. 86 ¶¶ 12-13 and Doc. 93 ¶¶12-13). When SOIGA
received the appeal, three weeks late, it was rejected as untimely. (Id.) These
facts are undisputed. Given the untimely appeal, corrections defendants
argue that the plaintiff failed to properly exhaust all available administrative
remedies regarding the shower-fall claim. Plaintiff, on the other hand,
counters that his appeal was untimely due to the consequences of COVID-
19 lockdown measures, whereby he was denied access to those
administrative remedies. (Doc. 92 at 4 and Doc. 93 ¶¶ 15-20).
A prisoner is only required to exhaust administrative remedies that are
“available.” Rinaldi v. United States, 904 F.3d 257, 268 (2018) (citing
Woodford, 548 U.S. at 93). An administrative remedy is unavailable, and
administrative exhaustion is thus excused, in three situations: “(1) when ‘it
operates as a simple dead end—with officers unable or consistently unwilling
to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates’; (2) when it is ‘so opaque that it
becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use,’ such as when no ordinary
prisoner can discern or navigate it; or (3) when ‘prison administrators thwart
inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination,
misrepresentation, or intimidation.’” Id. at 266-67 (quoting Ross v. Blake, 578
U.S. 632, 643-44 (2016)). If defendants establish failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the
administrative remedy process was unavailable. Id. at 268.
Here, Andino-Hernandez asserts that the COVID-19 lockdown
measures prevented him from accessing the law library and making copies
of his grievance in the form of a photocopy, which he contends was needed
for his SOIGA appeal. (Doc. 92 at 5 and Doc. 93 ¶¶ 17-20). Plaintiff submitted
a request to make copies with the librarian, Ms. Stewart, who denied the
request until the COVID-19 restrictions were lifted. (Id.) Furthermore, plaintiff
asserts that, before the appeal window closed, he wrote to SOIGA—on
March 28, 2020—requesting a time extension to file his appeal but never
received a reply. (Doc. 92 at 5 and Doc. 93 ¶¶ 19-22). Accordingly, plaintiff
argues that the administrative remedy process became unavailable. The
court disagrees.
First, corrections defendants correctly note that Andino-Hernandez
was not required to submit a “photocopy” of the grievance; he was only
required to submit a “legible copy” of that document. Andino-Hernandez
writes that DC-ADM 804 §2.B.1.j.(1)-(7) states that “ ‘an inmate appealing a
grievance to final review is responsible for providing SOIGA with all reqired
[sic] documentation relevant to the appeal. All submitted documentation
must be a copy and cannot be handwritten.” (Doc. 92 at 4) (emphasis in
original). This is a plain mischaracterization of the policy. The provision
mandates that “the copies of the initial review response/rejection and the
Facility Manager/designee’s decision cannot be handwritten.” DC-ADM 804
§2.B.1.j.(7) (emphasis added). However, Mr. Andino-Hernandez does not
claim he needed copies of those documents. Rather, he bases his
unavailability argument entirely on his purported inability to make a copy of
his original grievance. (See, e.g., Doc. 92 at 5 (“Plaintiff wrote to the librarian
… requesting to make the necessary copies of the aforesaid grievance); id.
(“Plaintiff wrote a letter … apprising them of [his] inability to obtain copies of
grievance no. 853835”); id. (“Andino-Hernandez … request[ed] an extension
of time … by requesting to make the necessary copies of the grievance”);
Doc. 93-1 ¶ 8 (“I wrote … that I could not obtain copies of my grievance
needed to submit for final appeal”); id. ¶ 11 (“Covid-19 lockdown and the
restrictions prevented me from obtaining copies of grievance (853835) and
subsequently caused me to submit an untimely appeal of that grievance”).
But there is no restriction against providing a handwritten copy of the initial
grievance. See id. §2.B.1.j.(1)-(7). The policy merely mandates that “a legible
copy of the Initial Grievance” be included in a proper appeal. Id. §2.B.1.j.(1).
Thus, Mr. Andino-Hernandez’s argument that the administrative remedy
process was made unavailable to him because he was unable to make a
photocopy of his initial grievance to submit to SOIGA is unavailing. Further
undermining this argument, Mr. Andino-Hernandez himself concedes that
when he ultimately did submit his untimely appeal, he sent in the original of
that grievance. (Doc. 93-1 ¶ 10 (“I was then forced to send the originals of
grievance (853835) to final review.”). While that appeal was rejected, it was
not because he submitted the original copy of that grievance.1
Second, even if Andino-Hernandez was required to provide
photocopies of his grievance, he was not barred from obtaining such
photocopies, only from being able to make them himself, in-person. When
Andino-Hernandez submitted his April 1, 2020 Form DC-135A inmate
request asking to travel to the law library and make “cop[ies] of some
paperwork,” the request was denied and he was told by the librarian, “[w]e
are not scheduling people to make copies until the Governor lifts the disaster
emergency.” (Doc. 93-1 at 4) (emphasis added). However, Mr. Andino-
Hernandez was entitled to request copies to be made on his behalf—
critically, he did so, and the request was fulfilled. (See Doc. 96-1 ¶ 7).
Accordingly, this excuse is equally as unpersuasive as the former.
Corrections defendants have successfully established that Mr. Andino-
Hernandez failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding the
shower-fall claim, and Mr. Andino-Hernandez has failed to affirmatively show
1 Corrections defendants note that during the time of the above events,
SOIGA had a special “Action Required” form it used when an appeal was
missing the required “legible copy” of the grievance. (See, e.g., Doc. 67-2 at
8). There is no evidence that such form was used by SOIGA in connection
with Andino-Hernandez’s appeal of grievance no. 853835.
his administrative remedies were unavailable to him. Hardy v. Shaikh, 959
F.3d 578, 587 (3d Cir. 2020) (after the prison official “has established that
[an] inmate failed to resort to administrative remedies, the onus falls on the
inmate to show that such remedies were unavailable to him”). Accordingly,
the court will enter summary judgment in the remaining corrections
defendants’ favor.2
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant corrections defendants’
second motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s remaining
Eighth Amendment claim. An appropriate order shall issue.
s/ Malachy E. Mannion
Malachy E. Mannion
United States District Judge
Dated: May 12, 2025
21-1570-03
2 Corrections defendants advance the argument that summary
judgment should be entered in their favor because, arguendo, Andino-
Hernandez failed to address the shower-fall claim when responding to their
first motion for summary judgment and effectively waived that claim. (Doc.
96 at 1-3). In light of the judgment in the corrections defendants’ favor, this
argument need not be reached.