IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
March 9, 2010
DONALD L. MOSHIER , JR., PLAINTIFF,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 9th day of March, 2010, upon consideration of defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (Doc. 53), and in considering the motion to dismiss*fn1 , and accepting as true all factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, and viewing them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, and it appearing that plaintiff has stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim in that he alleges that, while incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, defendants failed to take reasonable measures to guarantee his safety from inmate Logan, an inmate with a known violent past history, by incarcerating him under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm and knowing of and disregarding an excessive risk to his health or safety, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 833-34, 847 (1994), and that this failure resulted in a brutal knife attack on plaintiff on December 23, 2006, by inmate Logan during which plaintiff was stabbed approximately twenty-one times and required emergency medical care, and it further appearing that plaintiff has set forth sufficient allegations to state a claim pursuant to the Federal Tort Claim Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq.*fn2 , by alleging that defendants had a duty to protect plaintiff, the duty was breached, that there exists a causal connection between defendants' conduct and the resulting injury, and that he has suffered actual damages*fn3 , and upon consideration of defendants' motion for summary judgment*fn4 , in which they seek an entry of judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity*fn5 , and argue that "the facts demonstrate that Mosier's [sic] concerns about sharing a cell with inmate Logan were immediately addressed by staff, and appropriate steps were taken to ensure his safety by removing inmate Logan from his cell," and that "[s]taff had no reason to believe that Logan continued to constitute a threat to Mosier's [sic] safety once Logan was removed" (Doc. 57, at 19-20), and it appearing from plaintiff's declaration that there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude an entry of summary judgment in that inmate Logan, who had a lengthy and documented history of violence against both inmates and staff at previous federal prisons where he had been incarcerated (Doc. 64-2, at 2, ¶ 3), was housed in disciplinary segregation for possession of two homemade knives immediately prior to being celled with plaintiff, and that on December 21, 2006, plaintiff awoke to find inmate Logan standing over him and threatening him with a metal knife in each hand, and that plaintiff informed the case manager and unit manager about the knives and that although Logan was removed from his cell on that same day, the knives were not confiscated until after the December 23, 2006 knife attack on plaintiff (id., at 3- 5), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 53) is DENIED.
2. Defendants shall file an answer to the complaint on or before March 22, 2010.
3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 53) is DENIED.
4. The parties will be afforded until June 7, 2010, to conduct any and all discovery.
5. Rule 56 motions shall be filed on or before June 28, 2010.
6. The matter will be listed for trial, if necessary, after the disposition of Rule 56 motions.