# Allen Jr. v. Pennsylvania State Police Carlisle Troop H

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · August 27, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11128832

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 27, 2025
- **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/11128832

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THURMOND ALLEN JR., :

Plaintiff : CIV. ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-106

v. : (JUDGE MANNION)

PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE :
CARLISLE TROOP H, et al.,
:
Defendants
:

MEMORANDUM

This is a prisoner civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 in
which plaintiff alleges civil rights violations arising from an alleged sexual
assault and several other incidents. For the reasons set forth below, the
complaint will be dismissed in part with prejudice, and the case will be
allowed to proceed solely with respect to plaintiff’s claims against defendant
Voorstad.
I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Thurmond Allen Jr., filed this case on December 31, 2024,
and the court received and docketed her1 complaint on January 17, 2025.
(Doc. 1). Although no parties were initially served with the complaint, on
March 28, 2025, counsel for defendant Wellpath LLC and other defendants

employed by Wellpath entered an appearance and then filed a suggestion of
bankruptcy and request for stay based on Wellpath’s filing for bankruptcy
protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
Texas. (Doc. 19). On May 15, 2025, Wellpath informed the court that it had

emerged from bankruptcy protection and that the automatic bankruptcy stay
no longer applied to this case. (Doc. 20). Allen accordingly filed a motion to
“proceed to the case” on August 1, 2025. (Doc. 22). The case is now before

the court for a mandatory screening review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a)
and 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

1 In an earlier case filed by plaintiff, the court referred to plaintiff by the
masculine pronouns “he” and “him,” which was in accordance with plaintiff’s
pronoun usage in that case. See Allen v. Wellpath LLC, No. 1:24-CV-1536,
Docs. 37-38 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2025). The court now refers to plaintiff by
the feminine pronouns “she” and “her” because plaintiff states in the
complaint in this case that she identifies as a transgender woman and uses
feminine pronouns.
The complaint asserts numerous civil rights claims arising from events
that occurred in late 2022 and early 2023. As explained below, several of

these claims are patently untimely because they are based on events that
occurred more than two years before the filing of Allen’s complaint. Because
these claims cover the first 65 pages of Allen’s 142-page complaint, the court

will not summarize these claims in the interest of judicial economy.
According to the complaint,2 Allen was incarcerated in SCI-Camp Hill’s
restricted housing unit (“RHU”) on January 3, 2023. (Id. at 65). defendant
Voorstad, a doctor in the prison, came to the RHU and stated that he needed

to assess Allen’s abdominal pain. (Id.) Defendants Ressler and John Doe 1
then purportedly strip-searched Allen, handcuffed her, and transported her
to a medical cell. (Id.)

Voorstad began examining Allen in the medical cell. (Id.) Defendants
Ressler and John Does 1-6 were present in the room. (Id.) Voorstad
instructed Allen to lie on the bed in the cell and “rubbed and ran his hand all
over [Allen’s] abdomen.” (Id. at 66). Voorstad purportedly stated that he

2 The complaint contains numerous allegations of hundreds of
defendants taking mundane actions such as, for example, filing information
in electronic logging systems, responding to grievances and related appeals,
and walking through cell blocks without doing or saying anything else. In the
interest of judicial economy, the court summarizes these allegations only
when they are pertinent to Allen’s claims.
would order H-Pylori, stool, and thyroid tests for Allen. (Id.) Allen told
Voorstad that she had regular constipation and that her intestines were “full

of feces” sometime in July 2022. (Id.) John Doe 1 then stated, “yeah, he’s
full of shit.” (Id.)
At this point, Voorstad purportedly stated that he would perform a rectal

examination on Allen. (Id.) He directed her to lie down on her left side, facing
the wall, with handcuffs on. (Id.) Voorstad then allegedly pulled down her
underwear and exposed her buttocks. (Id.) Allen asked if she could be turned
so that her buttocks were facing away from the other people in the room, but

Voorstad said this could not be done because he could perform the
examination better with his right hand. (Id.) Allen asked if the officers could
leave the room, but they instructed her that at least one had to remain in the

room. (Id.) John Doe 1 stayed in the room, and the others exited, though
defendant Ressler remained just outside the cell. (Id.)
Voorstad allegedly placed his hand on Allen’s hip and held her down
before allegedly placing his finger in Allen’s anus. (Id. at 66-67). Voorstad

then allegedly “cupped his fingers together and slid his entire right hand into
the plaintiff’s anus, very fast and violently, holding it there with the same initial
force” he had used to put his finger in her anus. (Id. at 67). Voorstad

purportedly “moved his fingers around” and “turned them into a fist” inside
Allen’s anus. (Id.) Allen purportedly wanted to scream and cry because of
the pain and tried to fight back against Voorstad’s touch but could not

because she was handcuffed and facing the wall. (Id.) John Doe 1
purportedly observed this and called John Doe 2 over to look into the cell as
Voorstad’s entire right hand was inside Allen’s anus. (Id.) At that point,

Voorstad removed his hand from Allen’s anus, which allegedly caused a
large amount of lubrication to “pour[] out all over the plaintiff’s buttocks, the
medical bed, and on the floor.” (Id.) John Doe 2 allegedly laughed and said,
“what the fuck, man.” (Id.) Voorstad allegedly handed Allen six paper towels

and told her to wipe herself. (Id.) The complaint asserts that Voorstad’s
actions constituted sexual assault and that defendants Ressler and John
Does 1 and 2 failed to intervene to prevent the assault. (Id.) Ressler and

John Doe escorted Allen back to her cell. (Id. at 68). At that point, she
attempted to wipe herself off with a towel, but the wiping caused significant
pain. (Id.) Allen continued to experience significant pain and felt like she
could not sit down. (Id.) She also allegedly felt “drafts … up her anus.” (Id.)

At approximately 4:00 PM on the day of the alleged assault, Allen was
escorted to the prison’s medical dispensary. (Id.) Allen asked defendants
Stepanski and Billow, two nurses in the dispensary, whether Voorstad had

followed the correct procedures for a rectal exam. Stepanski and Billow
purportedly “appeared appalled” and told her he had not. (Id.) Stepanski and
Billow allegedly began making phone calls to inform others of Allen’s

allegations of sexual assault. (Id. at 70). Allen began “uncontrollably crying.”
(Id.) Defendant Duggan, a correctional officer, instructed Allen to remove her
clothing and placed the clothing in a Zip-loc evidence bag. (Id.)

Allen was transported to the emergency room at an outside hospital at
approximately 5:31 PM. (Id.) At the emergency room, Allen was placed in a
wheelchair and taken to an examination room where a CAT scan and blood
work were performed on her. (Id.) Two nurses performed a rape kit

examination on her. (Id. at 71). The nurses concluded that there were
lacerations, abrasions, and redness present on Allen’s anus that were
consistent with a sexual assault. (Id.) The nurses prescribed her Tylenol,

stated that the wounds would heal on their own in a week, and instructed her
to wait “a while” before attempting to defecate. (Id.) Allen asked the nurses
and the doctor who were present in the room what the correct procedure was
for a rectal examination, and they purportedly stated, “just a finger or two.”

(Id.) Allen again began to cry. (Id.) The doctor purportedly concluded that
she had been sexually assaulted. (Id.)
Defendants Carey and Gooley, officers with the Pennsylvania State

Police (“PSP”), interviewed Allen at the hospital and collected the rape kit as
evidence. (Id.) Defendant Highhouse, another officer with the PSP allegedly
examined the rape kit between 2:00 AM and 5:00 AM. (Id.) Allen was

transported back from the hospital, where defendant Voorstad allegedly
placed her under 23-hour observation in retaliation for complaining about his
conduct. (Id. at 72). Voorstad also purportedly contacted the hospital and

asked if detailed medical records could be released. (Id.) Defendant Bartrow,
a correctional officer in the prison, placed Allen in a psychiatric observation
cell in accordance with Voorstad’s orders. (Id.) After she was placed in the
cell, Voorstad purportedly entered the “Sapphire System” and manipulated

Allen’s medical records. (Id.)
Officers in the housing block where Allen was housed purportedly
denied her pain medications, a blanket, and medical follow-up. (Id.) They

also purportedly “slammed” the door of the unit at all hours of the night to
keep Allen from sleeping. (Id.) Defendant Cirri purportedly falsified
information indicating that she had seen Allen for medical care during this
period. (Id.) Allen requested pain medications and a “coolant for her rectum

and anus” from defendant Bogue, but Bogue allegedly denied the request.
(Id.)
At approximately 2:00 PM on January 4, 2023, defendants Harrell and

Cirri, two nurses in the prison, came to Allen’s cell. (Id. at 73). Allen began
to tell them what Voorstad had done, but a John Doe officer interrupted the
conversation. (Id.) Allen told him to mind his own business. (Id.) Allen then

finished telling Harrell and Cirri what happened, at which point Harrell and
Cirri went into another room. (Id.) Defendants Fultz, Timpe, and John Doe 3
arrived in the housing block, at which point Allen overheard Fultz telling

Harrell and Cirri to “not give that motherfucker Allen shit.” (Id.) Allen then
yelled that they were planning to retaliate against her. (Id.)
At approximately 3:00 AM on January 5, 2023, John Does 16 and 17
purportedly came to Allen’s cell, impersonated “PREA lieutenants,”3 and

asked Allen various questions about the alleged assault. (Id.) At
approximately 7:00 PM that night, defendants Kaser, Swearingen, and
multiple John Doe correctional officers escorted Allen away from the

observation cell and back to the RHU, where they strip-searched her and
placed her in a “suicide camera cell.” (Id. at 74).
Allen’s cell in the RHU purportedly had feces on the wall, no heat, and
continuous cold air blowing through the vents. (Id.) Officers purportedly did

not give Allen any extra clothing or blankets for the cold. (Id.) It was allegedly

3 The court takes judicial notice that “PREA” refers to the “Prison Rape
Elimination Act,” a statute that, inter alia, sets rules and standards for prison
investigations into allegations of sexual misconduct by prison officials.
so cold in the cell that Allen could see her breath. (Id.) She was also allegedly
unable to flush the toilet in her cell, which led to the continuous smell of feces

in the cell. (Id.) Allen purportedly remained in this cell until January 10, 2023.
(Id.) Allen allegedly saw defendants Vega and Swearingen throw away her
outgoing mail during this period. (Id.) Allen asked defendant Barnes whether

the cold temperatures in the cell could be fixed on January 10, 2023, and
Barnes purportedly stated that a work order had been placed. (Id.)
John Doe 2 moved Allen to another cell on January 10, 2023, after
defendant Schneck asked other prison officials if Allen could be moved. (Id.

at 75). The other cell, however, also had feces on the wall and trash and dirt
on the floor and was very cold. (Id.) Shortly after her placement in this cell,
she was escorted back to the medical department to recover some of her

belongings that were there. (Id.) Her mail had purportedly been sitting in the
“wicket” of her old cell since January 4, 2023, but the officers escorting her
did not allow her to get the mail. (Id.) Instead, defendant Swearingen brought
the mail to her at approximately 5:58 PM that day. (Id.) The mail included a

response to one of her grievances, which was dated January 4, 2023. (Id.)
The complaint alleges that this date was placed on the response fraudulently
and that the response was not actually written on that date. (Id.)
On January 11, 2023, Allen asked defendants Timpe, Fultz, Campaign,
Jones, Arentz, Miller, and John Does 2 and 12 if they could help her with the

cold temperatures in the cell, but they allegedly ignored or denied her
requests for help. (Id. at 76-77). On January 12, 2023, defendants Smith and
John Doe 3 allegedly denied Allen a breakfast tray, a shower, and yard time.

(Id. at 78). Allen called for Fultz’s help, but Fultz purportedly ignored her. (Id.)
The complaint states that Allen was “convinced” that she was being denied
“heat, law library, food, sleep, exercise (yard), healthcare (medical and
mental), and showers for retaliatory, personal vendetta, hateful, racist and

sexist reasons.” (Id.) Later that day, officers deliver Allen’s lunch but failed to
give her a “bread bag with condiments.” (Id.) Allen then purportedly heard
Smith say to John Doe 12, “oh you mean chicks with dicks over there in 12,”

referring to Allen. (Id.) The complaint alleges that around this time,
defendants Duggan, Kaser, and Swearingen denied Allen grievance forms.
(Id. at 80). Allen, however, was “eventually” able to file a grievance. (Id.)
On January 13, 2023, unnamed officers in the RHU purportedly turned

on the exhaust fan in the unit, which made it significantly colder. (Id.) Allen
asked defendants Vito, Timpe, Fultz, Miller, Masiti, Williams, and John Doe
38 to turn off the fan and turn up the heat, but they allegedly ignored her or

failed to remedy the situation. (Id. at 80-81). On the same day, John Doe 3
purportedly gave Allen a lunch tray with soy ingredients, despite her being
on a no-soy diet. (Id. at 81). The exhaust fan was turned off at approximately

11:00 AM. (Id.) The heat was then turned on at 2:15 PM. (Id.)
Defendant Rutherford purportedly came to Allen’s cell for a medical
sick call at approximately 3:35 PM on January 13, 2023. (Id.) Rutherford

noticed that Allen’s feet were very cold and stated that he would approve an
extra blanket for her, but did not provide foot warmers, thermal socks, or
“diabetic/soft” shoes. (Id.) Defendant Antwi and John Doe 28 purportedly
denied Allen paid medication later that day. (Id.) John Doe 28 also allegedly

denied Allen a blanket, foot warmers, or thermal socks. (Id. at 82). On
January 13, 2023, unnamed officers in the RHU again turned off the heat
and turned on the exhaust fan. (Id.)

On January 16, 2023, John Does 9-11 strip searched Allen and then
escorted her out of her RHU cell and in the prison’s security office. (Id.) While
in the office, defendants Forcey and Stepanchik, two officers with the PSP,
interviewed Allen pursuant to their investigation of the alleged sexual assault

by Voorstad. (Id.) During the interview, Forcey purportedly threatened Allen
that she would be criminally charged if it was determined that she was lying
about her allegations against Voorstad. (Id.)
On January 18, 2023, defendants Harrell and Gordon, two nurses in
the prison, provided follow-up care for Allen’s injuries suffered in the alleged

assault. (Id.) Allen purportedly learned during this time that officers were
recording all of her movements in the prison on handheld cameras, which
they purportedly were not doing for any other inmates. (Id. at 84-85). On

January 22, 2023, and January 23, 2023, defendants Duggan, Kaser, Eaton,
Swearingen, Vega, Kithcart, and other unnamed officers purportedly
destroyed 24 pieces of Allen’s outgoing mail. (Id. at 85). The complaint
additionally alleges that between December 27, 2022, and February 15,

2023, Allen was only allowed to use the prison law library twice. (Id. at 86).
On January 25, 2023, defendant Henderson purportedly issued
misconduct charges against Allen for refusal to obey an order. (Id. at 89).

After conducting a hearing on the misconduct charges, defendant Schneck
found Allen not guilty of the charges. (Id.)
On January 27, 2023, defendants Henderson and Hunter purportedly
put “red cleaner solution” in Allen’s food. (Id.) Allen allegedly felt sick after

consuming the meal. (Id. at 89-90). Defendants Henderson and Kithcart then
purportedly gave her a dull, used razor later that day. (Id. at 90). After using
the razor, Allen developed “large ingrown hairs and razor bumps” which

became infected and caused significant pain. (Id.)
On February 1, 2023, defendants Campaign and Timpe purportedly
denied Allen a bread bag with one of her meals. (Id.) On February 2, 2023,

several defendants allegedly arranged to have another inmate, “Triz,” placed
in a cell directly across the hall from Allen’s cell to “harass and intimidate”
her. (Id. at 91). Triz and other inmates purportedly began verbally harassing

Allen immediately. (Id. at 92). Defendants Vito and Yox allegedly denied
Allen another bread bag on February 5, 2023. (Id.) Vito allegedly called Allen
a “rat and snitch,” and stated that she would be placed in disciplinary
custody. (Id.) Vito then filed misconduct charges against Allen for threatening

a staff member. (Id. at 93). In the charges, Vito stated that after Allen asked
for her bread bag, she stated, “fuck you pussy, I’ll max out, find you in the
streets.” (Id.) The complaint alleges that these allegations were false. (Id.)

On February 13, 2023, defendants Zimmerman and John Doe 19 came
to Allen’s cell, strip searched her, and then handcuffed her to escort her to
the prison’s shower facilities. (Id. at 93-94). However, defendants
subsequently denied her a shower. (Id. at 94). On February 15, 2023,

defendants Zimmerman and John Does 34 and 42 purportedly destroyed
three pens from Allen’s cell. (Id. at 96). Later that day, John Doe allegedly
called Allen a racial slur after escorting to a room for a call with an attorney.

(Id. at 97). Later that day, defendant Miller, a unit manager in the prison,
asked Allen if she wanted to be transferred back to general population. (Id.
at 98). Allen agreed and was transferred several hours later. (Id.)

On February 17, 2023, Allen passed two other inmates on a walkway,
one of whom stated that he knew Allen “dropped the slip” on his cellmate,
which Allen interpreted as an accusation that Allen had reported the inmate’s

misconduct to authorities. (Id. at 99). The inmate stated that he had seen
“the paperwork,” and that it would be “handled,” and threatened to kill Allen.
(Id.) Allen approached John Doe 25 and asked if she could wait there for the
other two inmates to leave the area, but John Doe 25 denied her request.

(Id.) Allen subsequently saw the other two inmates in another area of the
prison, and reported her safety concerns to defendants “St. Pierre,
Bengham, Chizzler, and Howdyshell.” (Id. at 100). On February 24, 2023,

Allen was transferred from SCI-Camp Hill to SCI-Mahanoy. (Id. at 101).
In March 2023, defendant Forcey prepared a search warrant for
medical records from the hospital that treated Allen following the alleged
sexual assault. (Id. at 102). Defendant Hair-Larue, an attorney with the

Cumberland County District Attorney’s Office, and defendant Delozier, a
magisterial district justice in the Cumberland County Court of Common
Pleas, approved the warrant. (Id.) After serving the warrant and reviewing

the medical records, Forcey purportedly concluded that Allen had not
suffered any physical injuries during the incident. (Id. at 102-03). Forcey
subsequently prepared a criminal complaint against Allen for falsely

accusing Voorstad, which Hair-Larue approved. (Id.) Delozier signed an
affidavit of probable cause for the complaint. (Id. at 103). Charges were
subsequently filed against Allen on April 19, 2023. (Id.)

Allen was subsequently transferred back to SCI-Camp Hill in
preparation for her criminal case and was placed in the RHU. (Id. at 106).
On her way to her cell, defendant Marshall purportedly took several legal
documents from her that Allen needed to prepare for the criminal case. (Id.)

Allen’s cell in the RHU purportedly had feces, trash, and dirt on the floor and
walls and the lights in the housing block were always on. (Id.) Officers in the
housing block allegedly denied her showers and use of the exercise yard.

(Id. at 107). On May 14, 2023, Allen was denied breakfast and lunch. (Id.)
On May 15, 2023, defendant Delozier conducted a preliminary hearing
on Allen’s criminal charges, after which he scheduled a trial in the case
before a judge on the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. (Id. at

107-110). When Allen returned to the RHU, correctional staff denied her a
meal. (Id. at 110-11). Allen alleges that from May 11, 2023, to May 30, 2023,
she was only allowed to use the law library twice, and that the law library did

not have a working toilet or sink and smelled like feces, urine, and trash. (Id.)
The complaint alleges that some time in late May 2023, an inmate on
the floor above Allen’s floor “did a parachute,” i.e., flushed a sheet or towel

down the toilet in his cell, which purportedly caused a “violent rush” of feces
and other material coming out of Allen’s toilet and the other toilets on her
floor. (Id. at 113). Defendants Kaser, Marshall, Henderson, Eaton, Bob, and

several John and Jane Does allegedly moved all the inmates off of the floor
except for Allen and one other inmate. (Id.) Allen remained in her cell until
May 30, 2023, when she was transferred back to SCI-Mahanoy. (Id. at 114).
Allen’s criminal charges proceeded to trial before defendant Guido, a

judge on the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, from May 3, 2023,
to May 8, 2023. (Id. at 118). During the trial, Allen purportedly learned that
Forcey had only obtained ten pages of her medical records when he sought

the records. (Id.) The full records—which were obtained by Allen’s counsel
and placed into evidence during the trial—purportedly established that Allen
suffered physical injuries during the alleged assault by Voorstad. (Id. at 118-
19). At the conclusion of the trial, the jury acquitted Allen of all charges. (Id.

at 119). The complaint asserts that this acquittal establishes that there was
no probable cause for the charges against Allen. (Id.)
The complaint asserts the following claims for relief:4 (1) sexual assault
in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) assault and battery under

Pennsylvania law; (3) placement in the RHU that violated Allen’s right to due
process under the Fourteenth Amendment; (4) deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (5) negligence

and medical malpractice in Allen’s medical care; (6) negligence by the
defendants involved in the alleged sexual assault; (7) cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth amendment based on the conditions of
Allen’s confinement; (8) negligence, assault, and battery under Pennsylvania

law based on the conditions of Allen’s confinement; (9) deliberate
indifference, defamation, slander, negligence, invasion of privacy, intrusion
upon seclusion, and gender discrimination based on defendants’ verbal

harassment of Allen and statements indicating that she was a snitch; (10)
malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, false arrest, intrusion of privacy,
false light invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, injurious falsehood,

4 Because plaintiff’s claims are set out over 19 pages, assert hundreds
of individual claims, and contain innumerable subparts, asides, and
statements of claims that are not clearly explained, the court limits its
summary of plaintiff’s claims to the nineteen categories of claims that can
reasonably be understood based on the text of the complaint. To the extent
any other claims are advanced, they are dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted because Allen has not adequately
explained the factual basis of the claims.
abuse of process, defamation, slander, libel, and negligence based on the
initiation of criminal charges against Allen for her allegations against

Voorstad; (11) cruel and unusual punishment, assault, battery, and
negligence based on the placement of cleaning solution in plaintiff’s food;
(12) denial of Allen’s right of access to courts and negligence based on her

limited access to the prison law library; (13) deliberate indifference, invasion
of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, and negligence based on defendants
allegedly telling other inmates that plaintiff had informed on them; (14)
interference with Allen’s right to communicate with an attorney; (15) violation

of Allen’s right to due process during various disciplinary proceedings; (16)
retaliation and civil conspiracy; (17) negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, and negligence based on various

statements that Allen alleges were false; (18) medical malpractice,
negligence, and lack of informed consent against Voorstad; and (19)
spoliation of evidence and negligence based on defendants alleged failure
to preserve evidence for her claims against Voorstad.5 (Id. at 121-39).

5 Plaintiff additionally asserts various claims based on defendants
interfering with her ability to practice her religion, viewing her naked, throwing
her shower shoes away, placing her in cells with various cellmates, and
interfering with her personal property, (see id. at 128-29, 135), but these
claims are based on facts that are outside the limitations period and will
therefore be dismissed as untimely as explained below.
II. DISCUSSION
This court must review a complaint when “a prisoner seeks redress

from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.”
28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). If a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, the court must dismiss the complaint. Id. §1915A(b)(1). The

court has a similar screening obligation regarding actions filed by prisoners
proceeding in forma pauperis. Id. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (“[T]he court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or
appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”).

In screening legal claims under Sections 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B),
the court applies the standard governing motions to dismiss filed pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Coward v.

City of Philadelphia, 546 F. Supp. 3d 331, 333 (E.D. Pa. 2021); Smith v.
Delaware, 236 F. Supp.3d 882, 886 (D. Del. 2017).
To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must set out
“sufficient factual matter” to show that the claim is facially plausible. Ashcroft

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This plausibility standard requires more
than a mere possibility that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct.
“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the
mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has not
‘show[n]’ – ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id. at 679.

When evaluating the plausibility of a complaint, the court accepts as
true all factual allegations and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn
from those allegations, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id.

However, the court must not accept legal conclusions as true, and “a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” will not survive a
district court’s screening under Section 1915A and 1915(e)(2). Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).

Courts must liberally construe complaints brought by pro se litigants.
Sause v. Bauer, 585 U.S. 957, 960 (2018). Pro se complaints, “however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
Plaintiff’s claims are filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Section 1983
authorizes redress for violations of constitutional rights and provides in

relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory . . .
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United
States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress . . . .

42 U.S.C. §1983. Thus, to establish a successful claim under Section 1983,
a plaintiff must demonstrate that the challenged conduct was committed by
a person acting under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States. Lake v. Arnold, 112 F.3d 682, 689 (3d Cir. 1997). By its terms,

Section 1983 does not create a substantive right, but merely provides a
method for vindicating federal rights conferred by the United States
Constitution and the federal statutes that it describes. Baker v. McCollan,
443 U.S. 137 (1979).

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.

A. Untimely Claims
The court begins its analysis by dismissing several of Allen’s claims as
untimely. Section 1983 civil rights complaints brought by inmates in
Pennsylvania are governed by Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations
for personal injury actions. Wisniewski v. Fisher, 857 F.3d 152, 157 (3d Cir.

2017). The limitations period begins to run on the date that the plaintiff knew,
or should have known, of the injury upon which the claim is based. Id. (citing
Sameric Corp. of Del. v. City of Phila., 142 F.3d 582, 599 (3d Cir. 1998)). A

district court may dismiss a complaint as untimely pursuant to a screening
review under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. §1915A if the
untimeliness is clear from the face of the complaint. McPherson v. United
States, 392 F. App’x 938, 943 (3d Cir. 2010).

Here, Allen filed her complaint on December 31, 2024.6 Thus, to be
timely, her claims must be based on events that occurred on or after
December 31, 2022. Her complaint, however, contains numerous

allegations—spanning the first 65 pages of the 142-page complaint—that
occurred before that date. Allen has not presented any basis to toll the
limitations period for these claims, nor has she shown that the claims are
timely under the continuing violations doctrine because her claims are based

on numerous discrete events rather than a single continuing pattern of

6 Pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, the complaint is deemed filed
on the date it was submitted to prison officials for mailing. See Pabon v.
Mahanoy, 654 F.3d 385, 391 n.8 (3d Cir. 2011)
conduct by the defendants. See Cowell v. Powell Twp., 263 F.3d 286, 292
(3d Cir. 2001) (noting that under the continuing violations doctrine, “when a

defendant's conduct is part of a continuing practice, an action is timely so
long as the last act evidencing the continuing practice falls within the
limitations period”). Accordingly, the court will dismiss the complaint with

prejudice as untimely to the extent it asserts claims based on events that
occurred prior to December 31, 2022.
B. Plainly Meritless Claims
The court will next dismiss numerous claims in the case that are plainly

meritless. Allen’s complaint advances hundreds of claims, many of which
appear to be based on nothing more than defendants’ mere presence, stray
remarks made towards her that did not cause her any harm, or trivial and

petty annoyances from her life in prison. Having extensively reviewed all 142
pages and 1,755 numbered paragraphs in the complaint under the liberal
construction afforded to pro se filings, the court finds that the only claims that
warrant extensive analysis are: (1) claims arising from defendant Voorstad’s

alleged sexual assault; (2) claims relating to the conditions of Allen’s
confinement; (3) claims arising from alleged tampering with Allen’s food; and
(4) claims relating to the alleged malicious prosecution during Allen’s criminal

case. All other claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted because Allen has simply failed to allege sufficient
facts to state any other claims even on a very liberal construction of her

complaint.
C. Sexual Assault and Related Claims
Turning next to the claims arising from defendant Voorstad’s alleged

sexual assault, the court first finds that Allen has adequately stated a claim
upon which relief may be granted against Voorstad. Allen alleges that
Voorstad anally penetrated her with his entire fist without her consent in the
guise of conducting a medical examination. This is clearly sufficient to allege

a violation of Allen’s civil rights under the Eighth Amendment. See Ricks v.
Shover, 891 F.3d 468, 475 (3d Cir. 2018) (“[A] single incident of sexual
abuse, if sufficiently severe or serious, may violate an inmate’s Eighth

Amendment rights no less than repetitive abusive conduct.” (internal
emphasis omitted) (quoting Crawford v. Cuomo, 796 F.3d 252, 257 (2d Cir.
2015))). The allegations against Voorstad are also plainly sufficient to assert
state law claims for assault, battery, negligence, and malpractice based on

a lack of informed consent.
No other defendants, however, can be held be liable for Voorstad’s
alleged sexual assault. Although seven correctional officers were present or

nearby during the alleged assault, there is no allegation that the officers were
aware that Voorstad was sexually assaulting Allen. Rather, it appears from
the four corners of the complaint that the officers believed Voorstad was

conducting a legitimate rectal examination on Allen. Their mere presence
during the alleged assault is not sufficient to establish their personal
involvement. Similarly, numerous defendants are named in the complaint

based on their failure to adequately respond to Allen’s complaints and
grievances about the alleged assault, but a defendant’s after-the-fact
response to a grievance or complaint about an event is not sufficient to
establish the defendant’s personal involvement. Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d

366, 375 (3d Cir. 2020). Thus, the case will be allowed to proceed against
defendant Voorstad, but the claims against all other defendants arising from
Voorstad’s alleged assault will be dismissed.

D. Conditions of Confinement Claims
To state a claim for violation of a plaintiff’s rights based on the
conditions of her confinement, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) she was
incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm; (2)

the defendants were deliberately indifferent to that risk; and (3) the
defendants’ deliberate indifference caused her harm. Williams v. Sec’y Pa.
Dep’t of Corrs., 117 F.4th 503, 514 n.58 (3d Cir. 2024).
Allen’s conditions of confinement claim is based on cold temperatures
on her housing block, the denial of several other meals, malfunctioning

toilets, and several other conditions. These conditions, either alone or in
combination, are not sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. To begin, although exposure to cold temperature may be the basis

for a deliberate indifference claim when prison officials fail to take sufficient
measures to ensure the prisoner’s protection from the cold, see, e.g.,
Mamanna v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 934 F.3d 368, 373 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991)), the claim may only proceed if

the conditions were extreme or the plaintiff suffered—or was likely to suffer—
significant harm. See, e.g., Bracey v. Sec’y Pa. Dep’t of Corrs., 686 F. App’x
130, 136 (3d Cir. 2017); Freeman v. Miller, 615 F. App’x 72, 79 (3d Cir. 2015).

Here, the complaint alleges that Allen endured cold temperatures for over a
week in the RHU, but it does not appear from the complaint that these
conditions were particularly extreme, and it is not alleged that Allen suffered
any risk of harm from the cold. Similarly, there is no allegation in the

complaint that the conditions posed by the malfunctioning toilets in the prison
posed any risk of harm to Allen’s health or safety other than having to deal
with the obviously unpleasant smell of feces and urine.
The denial of meals violates the Eighth Amendment only when a
substantial number of meals has been denied. Washington v. Rozich, 734 F.

App’x 798, 801 (3d Cir. 2018); Lindsey v. O’Connor, 327 F. App’x 319, 321
(3d Cir. 2009). Here, Allen alleges she was denied a handful of meals over
several months. This sporadic denial of meals is not substantial enough to

violate the Eighth Amendment. See Washington, 734 F. App’x at 801. Finally,
all other conditions of confinement alleged in Allen’s complaint appear to be
nothing more than trivial annoyances with her confinement. Thus, because
the conditions of confinement alleged simply do not violate the Eighth

Amendment, Allen’s conditions of confinement claim will be dismissed.
E. Food Tampering
The court next considers Allen’s claim that defendants Hunter and

Henderson violated her civil rights by putting “red cleaner solution” in her
“dinner pasta (red sauce).” (See Doc. 1 at 89-90). This claim does not set
out “sufficient factual matter” to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Allen has not alleged any facts to show that

she had personal knowledge that defendants poisoned her food, nor has she
alleged that she or anybody else saw the defendants place a foreign
substance in the food. Rather, it appears from the complaint that Allen simply

ate a meal and felt sick and then speculated that it must have been poisoned.
This unsupported speculation is not sufficient to “nudge” the claim “across
the line from conceivable to plausible.” Id. at 680.

F. Malicious Prosecution and Related Claims
Finally, the court considers Allen’s claims that Forcey, Hair-Larue, and
others wrongfully initiated a criminal prosecution against her. These claims

sound in malicious prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment.7
To state a claim for malicious prosecution under Pennsylvania law, a
plaintiff must allege: (1) the defendants initiated a criminal proceeding; (2)
the criminal proceeding ended in the plaintiff's favor; (3) the proceeding was

initiated without probable cause; and (4) the defendants acted maliciously or
for a purpose other than bringing the plaintiff to justice. Merkle v. Upper
Dublin Sch. Dist., 211 F.3d 782, 791 (3d Cir. 2000). Claims for malicious

prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment all require the absence of
probable cause. See, e.g., McNeil v. City of Easton, 694 F. Supp. 2d 375,
399 (E.D. Pa. 2010). The plaintiff’s acquittal on the underlying criminal
charges is not by itself sufficient to establish the absence of probable cause

7 Allen also asserts claims for intrusion of privacy, false light invasion
of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, injurious falsehood, abuse of process,
defamation, slander, libel, and negligence arising from her criminal case, but
these claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim because Allen has
not sufficiently explained the factual basis for the claims in her complaint.
for the charges. Fleck v. Trs. of Univ. of Pa., 995 F. Supp. 2d 390, 409 (E.D.
Pa. 2014) (citing Turano v. Hunt, 631 A.2d 822, 824 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993)).

Here, the only basis Allen has alleged for the absence of probable
cause is that she was eventually found not guilty of the underlying criminal
charges. (See Doc. 1 at 119). This is not sufficient to show the absence of

probable cause. Fleck, 995 F. Supp. 2d at 409. Moreover, it appears from
the complaint that defendants did have probable cause to initiate the criminal
charges. It is alleged that Forcey initiated the criminal charges against Allen
after reviewing her medical records and concluding that she had not suffered

any physical injuries. (See Doc. 1 at 102-03). It is then alleged, however, that
during the trial, it became clear that Forcey had erroneously only obtained
the first ten pages of the medical records and that the remainder of the

medical records established that Allen actually did suffer physical injuries.
See id. at 118-19. There is no allegation that Forcey intentionally or
knowingly reviewed incomplete medical records; rather, it appears that he
obtained incomplete medical records because of an error made by the

hospital.8

8 The complaint asserts in conclusory fashion that Forcey obtained the
records “knowingly,” but this conclusory assertion is not entitled to the
assumption of truth. (See id. at 118).
Furthermore, there is no allegation that Forcey, Hair-Larue, or anybody
else involved in initiating criminal charges did so with malice or for any

improper purpose. It appears from the complaint that Forcey and Hair-Larue
were simply acting in their professional capacities as an officer with the PSP
and an attorney with the DA’s office in investigating whether to file criminal

charges against Allen. There are no facts alleged as to why these individuals
would have any motive to file improper criminal charges against Allen. It does
not appear that either individual had any personal relationship with Allen or
personal knowledge of her prior to their investigation.

Thus, because it appears that Forcey and Hair-Larue had probable
cause to initiate criminal charges against Allen and because there is no
allegation of malice or any improper purpose, the claims for malicious

prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment will all be dismissed.
G. Leave to Amend Will Be Denied
Before dismissing a civil rights claim for failure to state a claim, a district
court must permit a curative amendment unless the amendment would be

inequitable or futile. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 245 (3d
Cir. 2008). The court will deny leave to amend as futile in the instant case.
Allen’s current complaint is 142 pages and 1,755 numbered paragraphs

long, and includes seemingly every interaction she has had with any of the
over 200 named defendants she had during the relevant period. In light of
Allen’s extensive recollection of the events giving rise to the complaint, the

court finds it highly unlikely that there are any additional facts that could cure
the pleading defects the court has identified that have not already been
included in the complaint.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court will dismiss with prejudice all
claims in this case except plaintiff’s sexual assault, assault, battery,
negligence, and malpractice claims against defendant Voorstad. All other

defendants will be terminated from the case. Plaintiff’s “motion to proceed to
case” will be denied as moot. An appropriate order shall issue.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
Malachy E. Mannion
United States District Judge

Dated: August 26, 2025
25-106-01

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11128832. Public record. Not legal advice.