The opinion of the court was delivered by: Buckwalter, S. J.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Ronald Jackson's October 31, 2008 and December 5, 2008*fn1 Motions for Summary Judgment, and the Response in Opposition by moving Defendants Michael Baratta, Kenneth Berlew, Mary Canino, Dustin Faith, Joseph Gola, Dion Hunter, Joseph Laubmeier, Michael Laurie, and Angellette Mathis (collectively "Moving Defendants".). Also, before the Court is Moving Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Declaration in Opposition. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied and Moving Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought a number of claims in his original Complaint against various prison officials. On March 31, 2008 this Court dismissed some of Plaintiff's claims with prejudice and other claims without prejudice to Plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 56.) On October 29, 2008, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 92.) Two days later, he filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Against All Remaining Defendants. (Doc. No. 93.) On January 15, 2009, Defendants filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 110.) After some spurring from the Court, Plaintiff filed, on April 30, 2009, an Opposition Motion and Memorandum to Defendants' Cross Summary Judgment Motion. (Doc. No. 131.) And, on May 5, 2009, Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff's Opposition Motion. (Doc. No. 133.)
Pursuant to this Court's Order (Doc. No. 78), dated September 16, 2008, the factual allegations as stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint constitute all of the factual allegations before this Court with certain necessary revisions and omissions with respect to prior Defendants who have been dismissed. The facts are as follows:
4. Due Process Claim Against Baratta and Canino
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Baratta falsely charged him with misconduct on September 21, 2006, regarding a broken cell door wicket in the Restricted Housing Unit ("RHU"). Defendant Canino refused to permit Plaintiff's witnesses, assessed him $38, and sanctioned him with ninety days in the RHU.
5. Eighth Amendment Excessive Force Claim Against Baratta and Hunter with Unspecified Eighth Amendment Conditions Claim
Plaintiff claims that Defendants Baratta and Hunter used excessive force by attempting to slam his hands and arms in an open wicket slot on October 20, 2006. He refers to non-Defendant Cavalari as Defendants Baratta and Hunter's supervisor. He also refers to unidentified officials who denied him meals and yard and refers vaguely to harassment, retaliation, and conspiracy.
6. Eighth Amendment Excessive Force Claim and Conditions of Confinement Claim against Berlew, Gola, Hunter, Laurie, Laubmeier
Plaintiff claims that Defendants Berlew, Gola, Hunter, Laurie, and Laubmeier escorted him from cell 014 to shower and then returned him to a different, dirty, uninhabitable cell, 002, on October 10, 2006. He alleges that non-Defendant Cavalari ordered this move as retaliation. Plaintiff grieved the cell move, pointing out a discrepancy in explanations for the move.
7. Due Process Claim Against Canino
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Berlew -- who has since been dismissed on this claim -- charged him with misconduct for flooding his cell and possession of contraband, Benedryl and a cigarette lighter. Berlew issued a confiscation slip for the contraband. Plaintiff explains that he put a lot of water on the cell floor to wash it, that the lighter was "planted, " and that he needed Benedryl for an allergy. As a result of the misconduct charge, and a hearing by Defendant Canino, Plaintiff received a sanction of ninety days in the RHU.
8. Eighth Amendment Excessive Force Claim, Unspecified Fourteenth Amendment Claim Against Baratta, Hunter, Laurie; Due Process Claim Against Canino
Plaintiff claims that Defendants Berlew, Hunter, Baratta, and Laurie assaulted him in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments on October 27, 2006, by getting his cell door key from non-Defendant Sutherland in the RHU control office (the "bubble") and closing the cell door on him. Plaintiff refers to non-Defendant Cavalari's failure to prevent the above and reprimand the officers, but does not and cannot reasonably state that Cavalari observed the event or knew that it would occur. Plaintiff was charged with misconduct (assault) related to the encounter. Plaintiff claims that ...