PHILADELPHIA – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the ruling of a lower federal court, which dismissed an incarcerated man’s lawsuit alleging violation of the Eighth Amendment and other charges as unsupported.
In a per curiam ruling on Feb. 23, the federal appellate court upheld a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which dismissed the lawsuit of plaintiff Ramon Vasquez against a number of corrections and psychological officials.
Vasquez in his suit alleged that he had requested to be confined in a single cell without a cellmate due to his fears of being sexually assaulted, but was instead placed in a cell with a cellmate. Vasquez claimed that he was then sexually assaulted by his cellmate, which he reported to prison employees and the police.
However, after an investigation, the prison official determined that the assault did not happen. Later, Vasquez was placed with a different cellmate, but not before expressing to prison guards that he “did not feel comfortable” about being housed with that new cellmate. He alleged that his new cellmate also sexually assaulted him.
After Vasquez reported the second assault, that cellmate was removed from the cell. Vasquez also stated his dissatisfaction with the way that his grievances were handled, and about the way he was treated by the prison psychologist and certain officers who made disparaging remarks toward him.
“He asserted various claims under the Eighth Amendment, as well as claims of negligence, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and medical malpractice. After Vasquez twice amended his complaint, the District Court screened the complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim,” the appellate court explained.
“Vasquez then filed a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). In it, Vasquez averred that the District Court mistakenly stated in its opinion that he had amended his complaint three times while, according to Vasquez, he only amended his complaint twice. The District Court denied the motion and Vasquez timely appealed.”
According to the Third Circuit, Vasquez did not prove his Eighth Amendment claim or allege that “the prison officials knew of any substantial risk to Vasquez’s health or safety by placing him in a cell with another inmate”, since his request was based on another incident at a different institution and speculation from other inmates.
“The District Court also properly dismissed Vasquez’s remaining state law claims. Regarding his negligence claims, Vasquez did not state how the officials charged with administrative review of his grievances, the prison guards, or a mental health counselor breached a statutory standard of care or how they caused his alleged injuries,” the Third Circuit stated.
“His intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails because Vasquez did not show that the conduct was sufficiently ‘extreme and outrageous’ or that the resulting emotion distress was ‘severe.’ And, Vasquez has not alleged any harm from that conduct.”
In its conclusion, the Third Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
“In his motion, Vasquez presented no change in law or new evidence. He stated only that the District Court miscalculated the number of times that he was allowed to amend his complaint. If true, such a factual error was immaterial to the disposition of the case, especially where Vasquez was given leave to amend his first amended complaint before it was dismissed. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion,” the Third Circuit ruled.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 20-2536
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 3:19-cv-00040
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com