706. Because McGrath has failed to allege that he was deprived of
a protected liberty interest, his claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment for violations of his due process rights will be
Based upon the foregoing memorandum, the motion will be granted
in part and denied in part. An appropriate Order follows.
AND NOW this 24th day of September, 1999, upon consideration
of the motion of defendants Mahanoy Superintendent Martin L.
Dragovich, Mahanoy Deputy Superintendent Edward Klem, Mahanoy
Unit Manager James Unell, Mahanoy Counselor John L. Johnson,
Mahanoy Security Officer John Doe, Department of Corrections
("DOC") Secretary Martin Horn, DOC Deputy Commissioner William J.
Love, DOC Coordinator of Classification Don Williamson,
Pittsburgh Superintendent James S. Price, and Pittsburgh
Counselor Dan DeFlora to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) (Document No. 22), and the response of plaintiff David
McGrath ("McGrath") thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief against
Mahanoy defendants Martin L. Dragovich, Edward
Klem, James Unell, John L. Johnson and Officer John
Doe as well as Pittsburgh defendants James S. Price
and Dan DeFlora is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
2. Plaintiff's claims for mental and emotional
injuries are DISMISSED pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
3. Claims alleging an unconstitutional transfer are
DISMISSED for failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies pursuant to pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
4. Plaintiff's request for damages from defendants
Horn, Unell, Dragovich, Klem, Price, Williamson,
and Love in their official capacities is
5. Plaintiff's state law claims are DISMISSED WITH
6. Plaintiff's claim under the Eight Amendment is
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM.
7. Plaintiff's claim under the Fourteenth Amendment
is DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is otherwise DENIED.
Thus, remaining are: (1) a claim for injunctive relief against
defendants Horn, Love and Williamson; (2) a claim for declaratory
relief against all defendants; (3) a First Amendment claim for
retaliation and the associated allegations of the alleged