Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Saturday, November 23, 2024

Judge deems dismissal motion temporarily moot in former inmate's Eighth Amendment rights violation case

Federal Court
Geneekpratter

Pratter | Ballotpedia

PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has temporarily deemed a dismissal motion from Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility and several of its officials as moot without prejudice, in the case of a former inmate of the institution who says he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, including being denied clean sheets and showers and not being allowed to leave his cell during a two-month incarceration.

Franky Mills filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 15 versus the City of Philadelphia (doing business as “Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility”), its Commissioner Blanche Carney, its Warden Michelle Farrell, its Deputy Commissioner Terrence Clark, its Deputy Wardens Edwin Cruz and Robert Rose, plus John Does 1-10.

Mills was incarcerated at the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility from November 2020 through December 2020, according to his complaint. He alleged that for no reason, he was subjected to “barbaric and inhumane treatment” including not being able to leave his cell and not being given a single shower or toothbrush. Mills also alleged he was not allowed to remove trash and food trays, causing leftover food to spoil and smell.

He claimed he was also not allowed to change his sheets, get a clean jumper or receive or make any phone calls. Mills alleged the defendants were aware of his “deplorable treatment” and did nothing about it, which caused him to suffer physical and psychological stress.

Counsel for the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility officials filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 11.

“In his complaint, plaintiff identifies several conditions that he complains violate his constitutional rights. As stated above, he alleges that he was not allowed to leave his cell, take a shower or brush his teeth, make or receive phone calls, and being exposed to unsanitary conditions. These alleged conditions, which plaintiff purports to have lasted approximately one month, are claimed to have caused him to suffer from ‘severe physical and psychological stress.’ However, these conditions are de minimis impositions – to the extent they are impositions at all – which do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.

“Further, plaintiff has failed to allege that his conditions existed for a requisite period of time that would give rise to a constitutional violation, nor even an injury associated with these restrictions. In Barndt v. Wenerowicz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that ‘the temporary denial of out of cell exercise for 28 days was not a substantial deprivation,’ particularly where the plaintiff had not demonstrated he suffered ill effects or needed medical care as a result of the alleged deprivation. In addition to out-of-cell exercise, the Barndt Court considered the plaintiff’s allegation that he was denied access to showers for that 28-day period. However, the Court determined such conditions did not violate the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. In this case, the Court should find that Barndt instructs that a similar deprivation, for approximately one month, did not rise to the genuine hardship over an extended period of time to implicate the Constitution under Bell. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed.”

The defendants continued that the plaintiff’s allegations “clearly fail to impart personal involvement of any of the moving defendants”, as the plaintiff did not articulate to whom he made his various requests.

“As for Commissioner Carney, Deputy Commissioner Clark, Warden Farrell and Deputy Wardens Cruz and Rose, plaintiff only alleges that these supervisors knew or should have known of the treatment, a hypothesizing similar to that found to be insufficient in Evancho. Indeed, plaintiff makes no mention of asking the named defendants directly or filing a grievance when such alleged requests were denied as is required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act,” the dismissal motion stated.

“Even if an official’s failure to favorably respond to a grievance was sufficient to constitute a constitutional violation – and Okey instructs it is not – these supervisors could not possibly have been considered deliberately indifferent to the alleged conditions by failing to improve them. Because plaintiff fails to allege the personal involvement of moving defendants, he fails to state a claim and they should be dismissed.”

UPDATE

A Dec. 1 judicial order deemed the dismissal motion and other relevant issues to be moot without prejudice, so that the issues could be brought once again after a future conference between the parties.

“Upon consideration of the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, plaintiff’s motion to compel with cross-motion for extension of time to amend the complaint, plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadline and motion to compel and the telephone conference with the parties on Nov. 30, 2022, it is ordered that the motions are deemed moot without prejudice to the parties, to raise the issues again following the next status conference with the Court scheduled for Jan. 17, 2023,” U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Gene E.K. Pratter said.

For a count of violating the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution through cruel and unusual punishment, the plaintiff is seeking damages, individually, jointly and/or severally, in excess of $75,000, together with interest, costs, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just, including equitable injunctive relief.

The plaintiff is represented by Gary Schafkopf of Hopkins Schafkopf in Bala Cynwyd, plus Matthew Weisberg, David A. Berlin and L. Anthony DiJiacomo III of Weisberg Law, in Morton.

The defendants are represented by Assistant City Solicitor Daniel Cerone and Matthew K. Hubbard, of the City of Philadelphia Law Department’s Civil Rights Unit.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-01474

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News