The opinion of the court was delivered by: Goldberg, J.
Plaintiff Calvin Camps, pro se, brings this action against Defendants Joyce Adams, Bryant, Rune Hellerslia, and Burnett alleging a violation of his constitutional rights during his incarceration.*fn1
Defendant Hellerslia has filed the instant Motion to Dismiss which, for reasons set forth below, will be granted.
Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Complaint alleges the following facts against Warden Joyce Adams, Deputy Warden Bryant, Rune Hellerslia, and Correctional Officer Burnett:*fn2
On January 21, 2008, while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Philadelphia Industrial Correctional Center ("PICC"), Defendant Hellerslia allegedly fabricated charges against him on a misconduct report. The report resulted in Plaintiff, "being [m]oved [f]rom B-1 unit to F-1 unit (Hold[)]." (Complaint, ¶ 3). Plaintiff claims that all of the Defendants, but particularly Hellerslia, Adams and Bryant, failed to hold a hearing before he was transferred. Plaintiff also complains that he was not provided with a copy of the misconduct report and that the Defendants did not investigate the false charges. After the transfer, Plaintiff claims that his outgoing mail was stopped, which prevented him from sending and filing legal papers. Plaintiff additionally claims that the Defendants denied him proper medical treatment. (See generally, Complaint).
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on October 7, 2008. The case was then removed to this court on October 21, 2008, by Hellerslia. On October 24, 2008, Hellerslia filed the instant Motion to Dismiss.
In considering 12(b)(6) motions, "[t]he applicable standard of review requires the court to accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Rocks v. City of Philadelphia, 868 F.2d 644, 645 (3d Cir. 1989). Complaints filed by pro se litigants are to be liberally construed and may not be dismissed unless the court concludes that a plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
I. Allegations in the Complaint
We have identified the following possible constitutional claims in Plaintiff's Complaint: a claim for the violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights and the deprivation of his access to the courts due to the stoppage of Plaintiff's legal mail; a Due Process claim stemming from Defendants' disciplinary action against Plaintiff; and an Eighth Amendment claim based on the Defendants' failure to treat Plaintiff's medical condition. (See generally, Complaint).
II. Stoppage of Legal Mail
The Complaint fails to allege that Hellerslia was personally involved in stopping Plaintiff's mail, and therefore, any claims against Hellerslia on this basis will be dismissed. A defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs to be liable. Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). Personal involvement can be shown through allegations of personal direction or of actual knowledge and acquiescence. Id. Here, even reading the Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Hellerslia's involvement was limited to filing a false misconduct report which resulted in the transfer of Plaintiff. This transfer then subjected Plaintiff to additional violations at the hands of the other Defendants. Specifically, the Complaint identifies Defendants Adams and Bryant and employees in the mail room as those ...