WILLIAMSPORT – A federal judge has denied a dismissal motion filed by counsel for corrections officials at SCI-Rockview, which sought to do away with an excessive force lawsuit filed by a prisoner in state custody.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Matthew W. Brann authored a decision on Feb. 9, refusing to dismiss plaintiff Erik Barclay’s lawsuit versus a number of corrections officer defendants, named only Stabley, McCurdy, Campbell, McHenry, Lee, Kauert, Phillips and Ortiz in the complaint.
Barclay explained that on May 17, 2017, Stabley and McCurdy entered his cell at SCI-Rockview. Defendant Stabley grabbed plaintiff’s arm, grabbed him by the neck, body-slammed him onto the concrete floor, and then called for backup.
While plaintiff was restrained on the floor, Barclay claimed that defendant McCurdy began punching and kicking plaintiff in the back, neck, elbows and legs areas of his body. At some unspecified point, plaintiff was handcuffed and remained on the ground.
Barclay added that defendants McHenry, Lee, and Kauert then entered his cell, and they placed their feet on his neck and ankle, and then began punching him. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant McHenry then kicked plaintiff’s right elbow and defendant Rogers also participated in the assault.
“Plaintiff was escorted to the infirmary by defendants Phillips and Ortiz, who, while plaintiff was handcuffed, forcibly twisted his arms and shoulders upward to purposefully cause injury and inflict pain on him,” Brann stated.
“The infirmary staff noted bruising, swelling, cuts, scrapes, and bleeding. Since then, plaintiff has suffered ongoing damage to his neck and back from the injuries he incurred. After plaintiff was released from the infirmary, he was placed in solitary confinement.”
When he tried to file a grievance, Barclay contended this attempt was denied and he filed necessary appeals.
In response to the suit, the defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to certain defendants, which then supposedly barred his claim brought pursuant to Section 1983 as a matter of law as against those defendants.
Specifically, the defendants conceded that plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies against defendants Stabley, McCurdy, and Rogers, but argue that he has failed to do so against defendants McHenry, Lee, Kauert, Phillips, and Ortiz (the moving defendants), as they were not mentioned by name in the initial grievance.
“In Pennsylvania, the Department of Corrections has established a comprehensive administrative grievance procedure, DC-ADM 804,” Brann said, who proceeded by outlining a detailed, three-level grievance review process.
This process “must include a statement of the facts relevant to the claim, shall identify individuals directly involved in the events and shall specifically state any claims he wishes to make concerning violations of Department directives, regulations, court orders, or other law.”
“Here, plaintiff filed his initial grievance in which he included a statement of facts regarding the alleged assault, identified the individuals involved in the events either by name (McCurdy, Stabley, Rogers, McHenry) or by description, such as “two heavy men (guards),” explained that he was face down during part of the assault, and stated the claim that he wished to make. Plaintiff also requested the names of those corrections officers involved in the incident. He then diligently exhausted all three levels of grievance review.”
Brann added that the defendants’ citation of Victor v. Burns from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which held that a “passing mention of additional corrections officers” for reasons unrelated to the claim “do not suffice to assert a grievance against those officers”, was irrelevant here.
“That factual posture is inapposite to the issue before this Court, as plaintiff identified or described the corrections officers, explained how they were directly involved in the alleged assault against him, and asserted a claim against them; they were not mentioned in ‘passing,” Brann stated.
“There is no requirement in DC-ADM 804 that a prisoner must name the individuals that were involved, and it is unclear to the Court how any plaintiff could comply with such a rule within the time allowed for filing a grievance when a plaintiff does not know the names of the staff members or did not see them. As such, the pending motion to dismiss is denied.”
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:19-cv-02054
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com