The opinion of the court was delivered by: District Judge Sean J. McLaughlin
Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint [ECF No. 72] be granted. It is further recommended that Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 63] be dismissed as moot. The Clerk of Courts should be direct to close this case.
A. Relevant Procedural History
Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution ("SCI") in Somerset. At all times relevant to the instant matter, he was incarcerated at SCI-Albion. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint in this case on July 31, 2008. [ECF No. 16]. He named the following individuals as defendants: Marilyn Brooks, the former Superintendent at SCI-Albion; William Cole, a Hearing Examiner; Timothy Mark, Deputy Chief Counsel for Hearings and Appeals; and, unnamed Program Review Committee officers. He claimed Defendants violated his constitutional rights in regards to a misconduct that he received on April 13, 2007.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 17]. Plaintiff then filed a motion to file another amended complaint. [ECF No. 26]. On January 26, 2009, I issued a Report and Recommendation in which I recommended that Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and that Plaintiff's motion to amend be denied as futile. [ECF No. 32]. The Court adopted that Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of the Court pursuant to an Order dated February 19, 2009, and the case was closed. [ECF No. 36].
Plaintiff filed objections [ECF No. 51] to the Report and Recommendation and clarified that he was challenging the results of Misconduct No. A703113, and not, as had been presumed, Misconduct No. A840326. He further asserted that the proceedings conducted on Misconduct No. A703113 were unlawful and as a consequence he must serve twelve years of disciplinary segregation. In light of Plaintiff's statements, the Court ordered the Clerk to reopen the case and allowed him to file a Second Amended Complaint, which was docketed on November 18, 2009. [ECF No. 60].
The Second Amended Complaint added as a defendant Lieutenant Ryan Szelewski. The allegations of the Second Amended Complaint were substantially the same as those in the First Amended Complaint: Szelewski issued Plaintiff a misconduct report on April 13, 2007, Defendant Cole found Plaintiff guilty of the charges of that misconduct without allowing him to present an adequate defense, and Brooks, Mark and unnamed Program Review Committee members improperly upheld Cole's decision. Plaintiff contended that as a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, he would be in disciplinary segregation until 2020.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 63]. Rather than respond to this motion, Plaintiff filed another complaint. [ECF No. 70]. His Third Amended Complaint raises an Eighth Amendment claim and a due process claim and restates the same arguments that he raised in the previous complaints and adds as defendants four individuals. Three of those individuals, Nancy Giroux, Richard Hall, and Michael Clark, appear to be the "Program Review Committee Officers" that had been unnamed in the previous complaints. The fourth individual, Michael Mahlmeister, is a guard at SCI-Albion and is completely new to this action. Plaintiff attached to the Third Amended Complaint 66-pages of exhibits, including the April 13, 2007 misconduct at issue, numbered A703113; numerous requests to staff members that he made during his disciplinary hearing proceeding and appeal process; the Disciplinary Hearing Report; his administrative appeal; the Program Review Committee's decision; and, his subsequent appeals of that decision.*fn1 Those exhibits show that Plaintiff received a sanction of 90 days disciplinary custody on Misconduct No. A703113, and not twelve years and/or segregation until 2020, as he previously had alleged. [See ECF No. 70-1 at 8].
Because Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint supercedes the Second Amended Complaint, Defendants' motion to dismiss and/or motion for summary judgment on the Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 63] should be dismissed as moot.
The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint [ECF No. 72], to which Plaintiff has filed a response [ECF No. 76]. The issues are fully briefed and ...