The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Judge McClure)
Robert Goodine, an inmate currently confined at the State Correctional Institute at Huntingdon ("SCI-Huntingdon"), initiated this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action by filing a complaint. Named as defendants are the Lackawanna County Sheriff, Lackawanna County Prison Board, Lackawanna County Prison Warden, Lackawanna County Commissioners, Lackawanna County Prison Security Chief, Andrew J. Jarbola, III (the Lackawanna County District Attorney), and Eugene "Gene" Talerico, Jr. (a Lackawanna County Assistant District Attorney). Goodine alleges defendants violated his First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights while Goodine was incarcerated at the Lackawanna County Prison.
Before the court are plaintiff's motion for default judgment, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and two separate motions for summary judgment from the defendants.
Plaintiff filed a "Petition for Default Judgment to be Issued against Lackawanna County Sheriff for Failure to Respond to Complaint" and a supporting brief on October 29, 2009. (Rec. Doc. Nos. 47 and 48). Plaintiff filed a second supporting brief on November 12, 2009. (Rec. Doc. No. 49). The Lackawanna County Prison Board filed an answer to the motion on November 13, 2009. (Rec. Doc. No. 50). The Lackawanna County Sheriff's Department filed a response to the motion and an opposing brief on November 20, 2009. (Rec. Doc. Nos. 63 and 64). No reply brief was filed.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a supporting brief on November 16, 2009. (Rec. Doc. Nos. 51 and 51-2). Plaintiff also sent correspondence to the court requesting the recorded phone conversations be added to the record. (Rec. Doc. No. 79). No statement of material facts was filed. Defendants filed an opposing brief on December 3, 2009. (Rec. Doc. No. 72). Plaintiff also filed a Petition for Recorded Telephone Conversations to be made part of the record. (Rec. Doc. No. 79). We will accept his CD as an exhibit to his summary judgment motion.
Defendants Lackawanna County Prison Board, Warden, Security Chief, Jarbola, and Talerico filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a separate statement of material facts on November 16, 2009. (Rec. Doc. Nos. 53 and 57). Defendants filed a supporting brief on November 25, 2009. (Rec. Doc. No. 66). No opposing brief was filed.
On December 30, 2009, Defendants Lackawanna County Sheriff's Department and the Lackawanna County Commissioners filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, a separate statement of material facts, and a supporting brief. (Rec. Doc. Nos. 76, 77 and 78). No opposing brief was filed.
All motions are ripe for disposition. Now, therefore, for the following reasons we will grant defendants' motions for summary judgment, deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and deny plaintiff's motion for default judgment, and we will dismiss the complaint in part if plaintiff does not amend his complaint.
The facts are as follows.*fn1 Robert Goodine is a prisoner currently incarcerated at SCI-Huntingdon in Huntingdon, PA. In April 2007, Goodine was a pre-trial detainee at the Lackawanna County Prison ("hereinafter LCP") in Scranton, PA. While incarcerated at the LCP, some of Goodine's telephone calls were recorded and provided to Assistant District Attorney Eugene Talerico. At all times relevant to this complaint, exceptions to the prohibition of interception and disclosure of communications were governed by 18 Pa.C.S. §5704.
When Goodine was admitted to the LCP he signed a written waiver that stated, in bold print, "I understand and agree that telephone calls are subject to monitoring, recording, and may be intercepted or divulged." In an affidavit, David M. Langan, one of the individuals principally responsible for the procedures that apply to inmate use of telephones in the LCP, indicated that persons who are calling the LCP are notified that the call may be recorded or monitored. David M. Langan also indicated that the LCP does not intercept, record, monitor or divulge any conversation between an inmate and his attorney of record.
Talerico indicated in answer to plaintiff's interrogatories that he listened to the calls as part of a continuing investigation and prosecution of Goodine and his accomplices. Talerico further indicated in his answer to plaintiff's interrogatories that none of plaintiff's calls with his attorney was intercepted or monitored.
Goodine testified at his deposition that he did not have any personal information that any member of the Prison Board was aware that his phone calls were being monitored nor does he have any evidence that the Prison Board, Sheriff's Office or County Commissioners were participating in the monitoring.
Goodine was housed in the "Delta Unit" while at the LCP. To obtain access to the law library, Goodine was to submit a written request for time to be scheduled in the library.
On October 22, 2008, we screened plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a) and 1915(e)(2)(B) and ordered service. The thrust of plaintiff's claim is allegations of Fourth Amendment violations based on Goodine's assertion that his telephone calls were monitored and turned over to the District Attorney's Office. He also asserts that he was denied access to the law library in violation of the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of access to the courts. Additionally, Goodine lists the Second, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in his complaint, but does not set forth any facts to support why he believes his Second, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated or how the defendants were involved in a constitutional violation. Goodine also contends that his First Amendment rights were violated because he was denied the opportunity to attend regular worship services and to have his priest visit him, again without setting forth any facts to support a constitutional violation or how the defendants were involved in the violation.
On reexamination of the complaint it is clear that Goodine has failed to state a claim based on the First, Second, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the parties did not address these allegations in their cross-motions for summary judgment. We will dismiss these ...