Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KAMIL T. BROWN,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-cv-02085

v. (SAPORITO, J.)

MS. HALDEMAN, .,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Kamil T. Brown, formerly incarcerated at SCI-Rockview,

proceeds on a complaint against seven defendants based on an incident

in which he fell down a flight of stairs in the prison. All defendants have

moved for summary judgment (Docs. 80, 84). For the foregoing reasons,

the Court will grant summary judgment to defendants Dr. Vernon

Preston, Nurse Melissa Vogt, Sgt. Vogt, Ms. Haldeman, and Lt. Vance,

but deny summary judgment as to the Eighth Amendment claims against

Unit Manager Pasquale and Sgt. Rook.

I. BACKGROUND

Brown proceeds on an amended complaint (Doc. 29) filed on

January 27, 2023. In brief, he alleged that he has a disability that

required him to be placed on the bottom tier of the prison, but the

defendants improperly moved him to a cell on a higher tier. He alleged

that because of this cell placement, he fell down a flight of stairs on

February 12, 2020, and then received inadequate medical care for his

injuries, partly in retaliation for filing grievances about the issue.

(Doc. 29).

On August 23, 2023, the Court granted defendants’ motion to

dismiss the complaint in part, permitting Brown to proceed on First

Amendment retaliation claims against Nurse Vogt and Sgt. Vogt; Eighth

Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Haldeman, Pasquale,

Vance, Rook, and Preston1; and Section 1985 conspiracy claims against

all defendants. In response to the defendants’ motions for summary

judgment (Docs. 80, 84), Brown now concedes that Nurse Vogt, Sgt. Vogt,

and Preston are entitled to summary judgment because he failed to

exhaust administrative remedies against them, and that “the facts do not

make out an actionable conspiracy claim” under Section 1985. (Doc.

100 at 2). Thus, the only disputed issue is defendants’ request for

summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claims against

Haldeman, Pasquale, Vance, and Rook.

1 Preston was named as “Presly” in the amended complaint.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary

judgment should be granted only if “there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is “material” only if it might affect the outcome

of the case. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A

dispute of material fact is “genuine” only if the evidence “is such that a

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.”

, 477 U.S. at 248. In deciding a summary judgment motion, all

inferences “should be drawn in the light most favorable to the non-

moving party, and where the non-moving party’s evidence contradicts the

movant’s, then the non-movant’s must be taken as true.”

, 24 F.3d 508, 512 (3d Cir. 1994). The party seeking

summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing the

district court of the basis for its motion,” and demonstrating the absence

of a genuine dispute of material fact. , 477 U.S.

317, 323 (1986). If the movant makes such a showing, the non-movant

must set forth specific facts, supported by the record, demonstrating that

“the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to

the jury.” , 477 U.S. at 251-52.

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the Court must first

determine if the moving party has made a showing that it is

entitled to summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); , 477 U.S.

at 331. Only once that prima facie showing has been made does the

burden shift to the nonmoving party to demonstrate the existence of a

genuine dispute of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); , 477

U.S. at 331. Both parties may cite to “particular parts of materials in the

record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored

information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those

made for the purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory

answers or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).

III. MATERIAL FACTS

Construed in the light most favorable to Brown, the non-movant,

the summary judgment record indicates as follows: Since 2006, Brown

has suffered from permanent spinal cord damage and “bilateral drop

foot,” which leaves him unable to lift or arch his feet properly. He wears

leg braces and walks with a “dragging or slapping gait.” For several years

in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, he was

treated extensively for this condition and given “bottom tier, bottom

bunk” status to accommodate his mobility issues.

Brown was transferred to SCI-Rockview in 2019, and the record

indicates inconsistency in how Brown’s medical restrictions were

recorded. On December 11, 2019, he was assigned to work in the kitchen

in a job he was physically unfit to perform. The kitchen manager told

Brown that “he could find nothing in the computer about [Brown’s]

medical restrictions.” On the advice of his counselor, and defendant

Pasquale, Brown visited the medical department “to get the matter

straightened out.” His medical records indicate that upon examination,

the medical department renewed his work restrictions, and his “bottom

tier, bottom bunk” status, effective December 13, 2019, through June 13,

2020. (Doc. 100-2).

Nonetheless, on February 5, 2020, Defendant Rook, “with the

knowledge and approval” of Pasquale, ordered Brown to move to a cell on

the top tier of the housing unit. Brown protested, informed Rook of his

mobility issues and need for leg braces, and “showed [Rook a] bottom tier

medical pass for lower bunk/lower tier status.” Rook allegedly responded:

“I don’t care . . . [y]ou’re moving to the top tier.” At some unspecified later

time, Rook “let on that he could not find any medical restrictions for

[Brown] in his computer.” On February 6, Brown also advised Pasquale

of his complaints, and Pasquale responded: “If Sergeant Rook wants you

to move upstairs, then you’re moving to the top tier.”

Brown attests that he made similar complaints to Heather

Haldeman, the unit major, by filing inmate request slips directed to her

on February 7 and February 10.2 Brown received no responses. Brown

also “encountered” Haldeman in person on February 9. Haldeman “did

not discuss the [February 7] request slip” but “did permit [Brown] to

explain” his concerns about the medical restrictions. Brown attests that

he also submitted a request slip to defendant Vance, a unit lieutenant,

but received no response. He also attests that he “encountered” Vance in

the inmate dining room on February 8, and that Vance “stated that he

would look into the matter.”

On February 11, Brown had a medical appointment for what he

describes as an “audit” of his medical records. The record of that visit

2 In a declaration, Brown attests that “any and all medical housing

assignment restrictions were provided to Defendant Haldeman via in-

house email,” but this statement is disregarded because Brown has not

established personal knowledge of this fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4).

indicates that Brown’s “restrictions and[] limitations were updated” (Doc.

100-7), but does not indicate in what sense the restrictions were

“updated,” or reconcile that statement with Brown’s other medical notes

indicating a bottom tier/bottom bunk restriction already in force.

Regardless, Brown was not moved from the upper tier.

The next day, February 12, Brown “fell down 25 to 30 steel-edged

steps.” He was found “lying on the floor in front of the steps . . . moaning

and [complaining of] back, right wrist, and right knee pain.” (Doc. 88-4).

He was held in the infirmary until February 21, and treated for his pain,

but x-rays of the affected areas were negative. (Doc. 81-3). On

February 21, Brown submitted Grievance #852140, repeating his

complaints that he had been improperly placed on the upper tier. In the

section of the form prompting him to list “staff you have contacted,”

Brown named Rook, Pasquale, “C/O Leathers,” and an unspecified

lieutenant. The grievance did not mention Haldeman or Vance, or the

inmate request slips and in-person complaints that Brown attests to have

directed to these individuals.

In response to the grievance, Haldeman wrote that “DOCinfo

records show[ed]” Brown’s bottom bunk/bottom tier status had expired

on December 16, 2019; that nonetheless, “staff were trying to return

[Brown] to the lower tier”; and that staff had observed that Brown was

able to navigate stairs “with no issues.” Haldeman thus found “no

negligence or indifference” by any officer, and he denied Brown’s

grievance. (Doc. 88-2). Brown’s appeals were denied on essentially

similar grounds, and this lawsuit followed.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Personal Involvement

Defendants3 argue that Haldeman, Pasquale, and Vance are

entitled to summary judgment because the evidence does not show their

personal involvement in the underlying violation. Brown’s response to

this argument is largely premised on his own declaration, and on the

allegations in his amended complaint, which he seeks to incorporate

within his declaration.4 (Docs. 29, 102). Defendants argue that the

3 As noted above, Brown has conceded Dr. Preston’s entitlement to

summary judgment (Doc. 80), and the only remaining issues are those

raised by the Commonwealth Defendants (Doc. 84). For brevity, the Court

refers generally to the movants as the “defendants,” although Dr. Preston

did not join the arguments discussed herein.

4 The rule that Brown cited for this purpose, Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 10(c), governs the form of pleadings, and does not speak to the

declaration is insufficient to the extent it “simply repeats his bare

allegations [in the complaint] that Defendants[] Haldeman, Pasquale,

and Vance were personally involved in Sgt. Rook’s decision to move him

to a cell in the upper-tier.” For the following reasons, the declaration does

not sustain a genuine dispute of material fact as to Haldeman or Vance’s

involvement, but Pasquale is not entitled to summary judgment on that

basis.

It is well-established that “conclusory, self-serving” testimony, via

affidavit or deposition, is insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

., 439 F. App’x 125, 127 (3d Cir. 2011);

, 560 F.3d 156, 161 (3d Cir. 2009)

(citations omitted). However, “the testimony of a litigant will almost

always be self serving since few litigants will knowingly volunteer

statements that are prejudicial to their case . . . [T]hat has never meant

that a litigant’s evidence must be categorically rejected by the fact finder.”

, 761 F.3d 314, 321 n. 2 (3d Cir. 2014).

admissibility of evidence at the summary judgment stage. Brown’s

complaint is unverified, (Doc. 29), and will not be considered.

Regardless, it would not have changed the outcome, because the

allegations are substantially similar to the statements in his declaration.

When a non-movant attempts to defeat summary judgment through their

own testimony, courts consider whether that testimony, “juxtaposed with

the other evidence, is sufficient for a rational factfinder to credit despite

its self-serving nature.” , No. 4:21-

CV-00694, 2024 WL 1604650, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 12, 2024) (citations

omitted); , , No.

3:18-CV-02137, 2020 WL 7773906, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 2020).5

As relevant here, defendants argue that Brown’s declaration does

not establish the required personal involvement of the supervisory

defendants:

A defendant in a civil rights action must have personal

involvement in the alleged wrongs . . . [P]ersonal

involvement can be shown through allegations of

personal direction or of actual knowledge and

acquiescence. Allegations of participation or actual

5 Defendants cite a case from this district holding that “to defeat a

properly-supported motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff may not

merely restate the allegations of his complaint.”

, 785 F. Supp. 61, 63 (M.D.

Pa. 1992) (citing , 685 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (M.D. Pa.

1988)). Read in context, this statement appears to mean that a party’s

initial allegations must be supported by “evidentiary affidavits” at the

summary judgment stage, not merely “restated” in a non-evidentiary

form. , 685 F. Supp. at 1339. Third Circuit precedent

precludes defendants’ proposed interpretation, which would essentially

serve to punish a plaintiff for filing a detailed complaint.

knowledge and acquiescence, however, must be made

with appropriate particularity.

, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988).

On these issues, Brown’s declaration, although self-serving, is not

conclusory. It offers detailed averments of interactions with various

defendants in which he complained about his prison placement. (Doc.

102, ¶¶ 24-90). However, the Court finds that the declaration,

“juxtaposed with the other evidence,” does not sustain a genuine issue of

material fact as to the personal involvement of Haldeman and Vance.

While Brown claims that he personally confronted both defendants prior

to his February 13 fall, and submitted inmate request slips to both, he

did not name them in his February 21 grievance, nor include them in his

list of “staff you have contacted.”

The record shows that Haldeman drafted the denial of the February

21 grievance, which contains no mention of Brown’s attested complaints

to her. Brown’s own appeal of Haldeman’s decision similarly makes no

reference to any prior interactions with Haldeman, and no allegation that

Haldeman was responsible for Brown’s placement or even aware of the

dispute prior to Brown’s grievance. (Doc. 88-2 at 11). Given these

facts, a reasonable juror would not believe Brown’s later claim that he

made two written complaints to Haldeman and confronted her in person

just days before filing the grievance.6

Turning to Vance, Brown asserts that he sent a written request and

renewed his complaint in person when he “encountered” Vance “while

coming out of the inmate dining room.” However, as with Haldeman,

Brown did not name Vance in his grievance. Brown now claims that a

lieutenant he named as “John Doe” in the grievance was in fact Vance

(Doc. 101, ¶ 7), but that story is essentially contradicted by Brown’s own

allegations. Specifically, no reasonable jury could believe that Brown

submitted a written request directed to Vance by name on February 7,

and recognized him in the dining room on February 8, but could only

identify him as “John Doe” in the grievance drafted on February 21. The

John Doe in the grievance had to be a different person, so that reference

does not support Vance’s personal involvement.

However, Brown’s attestations of his interactions with defendant

Pasquale, his unit manager, are sufficiently consistent with the record

6 For Section 1983 purposes, Haldeman’s involvement in

responding to Brown’s post-hoc grievance does not establish her personal

involvement in the underlying violation. , 167 F.

App’x 923, 925 (3d Cir. 2006).

that a reasonable jury could credit them. Brown named Pasquale in his

February 21 grievance, and specifically recounted having “show[n

Pasquale his] leg braces,” which is consistent with Brown’s accounts of

his other complaints. Further, the record shows that Pasquale had

previously advised Brown regarding his December 2019 complaints

about medical restrictions. (Doc. 81-4 at 17; Doc. 102, ¶ 77). Given

this prior interaction, a reasonable jury could believe Brown’s testimony

that he returned to Pasquale in February to raise a related complaint.

In sum, because the surrounding evidence is insufficient to credit

Brown’s attestations of Haldeman and Vance’s personal involvement in

the alleged violation, those defendants are entitled to summary judgment

on that basis, but Pasquale is not.

B. Deliberate Indifference

Given the foregoing analysis, the only remaining question is

whether the remaining defendants, Rook and Pasquale, are entitled to

summary judgment notwithstanding the evidence of their personal

involvement in Brown’s cell placement.

A claim of failure to accommodate medical restrictions in cell

placement is analyzed as a “conditions of confinement” claim pursuant to

the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

, No. 3:21-CV-1570, 2023 WL 2633217,

at *5 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2023) (listing examples).7 The inmate must show

that “(1) he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk

of serious harm, (2) the official was deliberately indifferent to that

substantial risk to his health and safety, and (3) the official’s deliberate

indifference caused him harm.” , 802 F. App’x 84, 88 (3d

Cir. 2020) (quoting , 696 F.3d 352, 367 (3d Cir. 2012)). A

plaintiff can show deliberated indifference if he “demonstrates that the

defendant acted or failed to act despite having knowledge that [the

defendant’s] actions or inaction . . . would subject the inmate to a

substantial risk of serious harm.”

, 806 F.3d 210, 227 (3d Cir. 2015).

For purposes of the motion, defendants do not contest the first and

7 Defendants’ citations to cases involving claims of inadequate

medical care (Doc. 109 at 6-7) are inapposite. This is not a case where

Brown sought to subvert “the division of labor within a prison” by

compelling a non-medical officer to intervene in his medical care.

, 372 F.3d 218, 236 (3d Cir. 2004). The alleged violation in

this case — , the failure to implement cell placement restrictions

already imposed by the medical staff — is squarely within the remit of

the non-medical officers involved.

third elements, . , that Brown was at a substantial risk of harm and

that Brown’s fall was caused by a failure to address that risk. (Doc.

89 at 10 n.2). However, they assert that the evidence cannot support an

inference of deliberate indifference, because of the “disconnect between

[Brown’s] medical restrictions as recorded in his medical records and the

information provided in DOCnet.” (Doc. 109 at 5-6). In other words, they

argue that some unspecified administrative or technical error resulted in

Brown’s medical restrictions not appearing in the officers’ computers, and

therefore, they are not liable for failing to adhere to them. While that is

one plausible interpretation of this record, it does not entitle these

defendants to summary judgment, for two reasons.

First, defendants’ argument assumes that “DOCnet” was the

appropriate method for medical staff to convey an inmate’s medical

restrictions and for the officers to confirm those restrictions. Although

defendants appear to contend that their “requirement” was to check

DOCnet, and any further inquiry would be “above and beyond” their

duties, (Doc. 109 at 7), that procedure is not established by evidence,

and cannot be assumed in the movants’ favor at the summary judgment

stage.8 Thus, evidence that defendants relied on DOCnet does not

necessarily preclude an inference of deliberate indifference.

The record indicates that Brown required leg braces, had visible

difficulty with his gait, and explained to Rook and Pasquale about his

injuries and his attendant restrictions. He had previously discussed his

medical restrictions with Pasquale in December, in connection with the

kitchen job. In the hours before he was moved, he also showed Rook a

“bottom tier medical pass,” which the Court can infer was facially valid

given that the medical department had approved his restriction through

June 2020. A jury could find that the officers’ responses to this

information represented deliberate indifference to a substantial risk to

Brown.9

8 , , , No. 4:22-CV-1555, 2025 WL 2248938, at

*2 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 6, 2025) (“While [DOC policy] called for medical

personnel to inform staff of any necessary medically determined

accommodations, the means by which this information was to be

transmitted was undefined, and in practice . . . this information was

shared in an unstructured and occasionally haphazard manner.”);

, No. 1:21-CV-00530, 2023 WL 7545523, at

*8 n.10 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 2, 2023) (describing a dispute as to whether a

“same level shower or stairs restriction” would appear on DOCnet).

9 , , , No. 19-3305,

2022 WL 777201, at *2-4 (3d Cir. Mar. 14, 2022) (despite the defendants’

Second, even assuming that defendants’ reliance on DOCnet was

justified, there remains a genuine dispute as to what information

DOCnet showed at the relevant time. In her response to Brown’s

February 21 grievance, Haldeman wrote that based on her post-hoc

review, “DOCinfo records show that . . . [Brown’s] ground level/lower

bunk status had expired 12-16-19. I learned that it has since been

reinstated.”10 (Doc. 88-2 at 12). However, Brown’s DOCnet data is not in

the record, and at the summary judgment stage, defendants would not be

entitled to the inference that Haldeman’s review of “DOCinfo records”

after February 21 accurately reflects what was visible on DOCnet prior

to February 12. Moreover, this explanation is still at odds with Brown’s

claims that a prisoner’s placement on the upper tier was the result of

unintentional error, his “serious medical need to be housed on the lower

tier, and the substantial risks associated with that need, were

documented and expressly noted by prison officials in the past. The

record also contains evidence and circumstances suggesting that several

[officers] were exposed to information concerning that risk.”);

, No. 1:20-CV-00315, 2022 WL 1667746, at *4 (M.D. Pa. May 25,

2022) (although not directly responsible for a plaintiff’s prison

placement, officers “were familiar” with his paralysis and took no action).

10 The Court infers that DOCnet is intended to display a history of

the inmate’s medical restrictions over time. , 2022 WL

1667746, at *4 (inmate’s “‘Medical Housing Recommendations’ from

DOCNet” indicated that he was “‘lower bunk’ status since 2009”).

medical records, none of which listed an expiration date of December 16,

2019, for any of Brown’s past restrictions. (Doc 100-2). Other than

their vague assertion of a “disconnect” with the medical records,

defendants provide no explanation for the asserted technical errors.11

Thus, the record leaves genuine disputes as to whether Brown’s

placement on the upper tier of his housing unit was in fact caused by

technical error, and whether, despite any such error, the officers had

sufficient knowledge of the danger to Brown that their decision to place

him there constituted deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of

harm.

V. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, summary judgment will be granted to defendants

Preston, Nurse Vogt, Sgt. Vogt, Haldeman, and Vance, and granted as to

Brown’s Section 1985 conspiracy claims, but denied as to the Eighth

11 Defendants contend that the unexplained December 2019 error

involving Brown’s employment restrictions corroborates their theory of

technical error as to his February 2020 cell placement restriction.

However, the record indicates that Brown visited the medical staff in

December “to get the matter straightened out,” and that Brown’s

labor and medical restrictions were updated on December 13 and/or

December 17. (Doc. 100-2 at 4-5, 9). It remains unclear why this

would not have resolved any asserted error in its entirety.

Amendment claims against Pasquale and Rook. The Court further finds

that this matter is potentially suitable for referral to the Prison

Litigation Settlement Program. An appropriate order follows.

Dated: January 5, 2026

JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.

United States District Judge