The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Kane
Wallace Rice, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania ("USPLewisburg"), filed this pro se Bivens*fn1 civil rights complaint on July 28, 2004. Named as the sole Defendant is USP-Lewisburg Warden "Mr. Smith." Plaintiff has paid the required filing fee in this matter. In the complaint, Plaintiff challenges the conditions of his confinement claiming that he is "being 'double-bunked' in a cell originally designed to house one inmate . . . ." (Doc. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff asks the Court to "(1) Issue an injunction declaring the prison cells in 'A-Block' unconstitutionally unfit and too small in size for two inmates; (2) Issue an injunction declaring that all cells in 'A-Block' house a single inmate because the design and structure is for one person; (3) Declare unconstitutional the practice of double celling inmates in 'A-Block' as barbaric, cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (4) Issue an injunction declaring that inmates over the age of sixty[-]five (65) with medical problems should be housed in a single cell."
Presently pending is Defendant's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment (Doc. 19). The motion is briefed and ripe for consideration. For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss will be denied, but the motion for summary judgment granted.
In rendering a decision on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept the plaintiff's allegations as true. White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 106 (3d Cir. 1990). A motion to dismiss may not be granted if "under any reasonable reading of the pleadings, plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Holder v. City of Allentown, 987 F.2d 188, 194 (3d Cir. 1993)(citation omitted). It is also well-settled that pro se complaints should be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Since Defendant's motion goes beyond the facts set forth in the complaint and relies upon supplemental documentation submitted with the brief in support of the motion, the motion to dismiss will be denied and the motion considered on summary judgment.
B. Motion for Summary Judgment
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment may be entered only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). Additionally, on summary judgment, the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
"Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To preclude summary judgment, there must be a "genuine" issue of a material fact, "that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. "If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Id. at 249-50 (citations omitted).
Moreover, Rule 56 provides that the adverse party may not simply sit back and rest on the allegations contained in the pleadings. Rather, the adverse party must show by affidavits, pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). When addressing a summary judgment motion, the Court's inquiry focuses on "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to the jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52 (emphasis added).
C. Exhaustion Requirement
Plaintiff claims that he is "being 'double-bunked' in a cell originally designed to house one inmate. . . ." (Doc. 1 at 1.) He contends that he is forced to spend most of his time in the cell which is unfit for "two man living". Id. Defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies thereby entitling Defendant to summary judgment. Although Plaintiff alleges on the face of his complaint that exhaustion of the ...