Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mackey v. Strada

September 9, 2008

EVARISTUS MACKEY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FRANK STRADA*FN1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Caputo

MEMORANDUM

On January 20, 2006, Plaintiff Evaristus Mackey, an inmate currently confined at the Victorville United States Penitentiary in Adelanto, California, commenced this pro se action by filing a complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. At the time of filing, Plaintiff was confined at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania ("USP Lewisburg").

Mackey names the following employees of USP Lewisburg as Defendants: Frank Strada, Associate Warden; J. Adami, Unit Manager; Chad Rice, Correctional Counselor; Tim Ranck, Correctional Counselor; Curt Rothermel, Case Manager; D. Childress, Unit Manager; Chris Henderson, Case Manager; and William Zegarski, Case Manager. He alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by placing him in administrative segregation within the Special Management Unit ("SMU") at USP Lewisburg and by transferring him from USP Lewisburg to the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois ("USP Marion").

Presently pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) filed on behalf of Defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion will be granted.

BACKGROUND

Mackey filed his Complaint on January 20, 2006. (Doc. 1.) Because the Complaint did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by Order dated February 17, 2006, he was given an opportunity to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 9.) On March 2, 2006, Mackey filed his Amended Complaint (Doc. 10).

By Order dated July 9, 2007, service of Mackey's Amended Complaint was directed. (Doc. 15.) Following a request for an extension of time to answer the Amended Complaint, which was granted, on December 6, 2007, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19). On December 20, 2007, Defendants filed a supporting brief (Doc. 20) and Statement of Facts (Doc. 21).

On January 11, 2008, Mackey filed a document entitled "Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss Or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment and, Plaintiff Supplement Adding Defendant Dodrill." (Doc. 22.) Because he did not file his opposition in conformance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) and M.D. Pa. L.R. 56.1, but instead indicated that he sought to add Dodrill as a defendant, by Order dated January 18, 2008 (Doc. 23), the Court directed Mackey to file either his opposition in conformance with the applicable rules or a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Thereafter, on February 19, 2008, Mackey filed a Motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add Dodrill as a defendant. (Doc. 24.) He also indicated that he was withdrawing his previously filed "Response" (Doc. 22).

On May 8, 2008, the Court denied Mackey's Motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 25.) The Order also directed him to file his opposition to Defendants' pending Motion in accordance with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) and M.D. Pa. L.R. 56.1, as set forth in the Standing Practice Order (Doc. 5), within fifteen (15) days. Following a request for an extension of time, which was granted, on June 16, 2008, Mackey filed a Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion. (Doc. 28.) He did not file an opposing statement of facts. On July 2, 2008, Defendants' filed a Reply Brief. (Doc. 29.) Therefore, the Motion is ripe for disposition.

LEGAL STANDARDS

I. Motion to Dismiss

Defendants seek dismissal of Mackey's Amended Complaint (Doc. 10) on the basis that it fails to state a claim upon whichrelief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In the alternative, Defendants seek summary judgment and have submitted evidentiary documents outside the pleadings in support of their motion. (See Doc. 20-2.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d) provides:

(d) Result of Presenting Matters Outside the Pleadings. If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). The Court will not exclude the evidentiary materials accompanying Defendants' motion because Mackey was given a reasonable opportunity to present material relevant to the Motion. (See Doc. 25) (May 8, 2008 Order advising Mackey that, because Defendants styled their Motion as a "Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment," he must oppose the Motion as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) and M. D. Pa. L. R. 56.1.) Accordingly, the Court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.