The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. John E. Jones III
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:
Plaintiff Roscheim V. Wilkerson ("Plaintiff" or "Wilkerson"), a former state inmate, initiated the above action pro se by filing a Complaint under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed on behalf of Defendants. (Doc. 15.) For the reasons set forth below, the Motion will be granted.
Wilkerson filed his Complaint on December 28, 2009 while he was an inmate at the Huntingdon State Correctional Institution ("SCI Huntingdon") in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1.) He was released from the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") on parole on August 2, 2010. (See Docs. 22, 25.)
On February 1, 2010, before service of his Complaint was directed, Wilkerson filed a Motion requesting leave to amend his Complaint to add a request for injunctive relief in the form of a transfer to a different state facility. (Doc. 7.) By Order dated March 10, 2010, Wilkerson's Motion was granted to the extent that his request for injunctive relief was accepted as a Supplement to his Complaint, and service of the Complaint and Supplement on Defendants was directed. (Doc. 10.)
Defendants waived service of summons in this action (see Doc. 14), and thereafter, on May 5, 2010, the instant Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) was filed on their behalf. Defendants simultaneously filed a supporting brief (Doc. 16). Following a request for an extension of time, which was granted, on May 26, 2010, Wilkerson filed his opposition to the instant Motion. (Docs. 20, 21.)*fn1 Accordingly, the Motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition.
II. ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT
Wilkerson's Complaint names the following SCI Huntingdon employees as Defendants: Ryan Hengst, Correctional Officer; Charles Mitchell, Hearing Examiner; Brian Corbin, Deputy Warden; Jon Fisher, Deputy Warden; Raymond M. Lawler, Superintendent; Careen Shafer (misidentified as Ms. Schafer), Drug and Alcohol Specialist; and Michael Ciavarella, Drug and Alcohol Supervisor. (See id. at 1, 2 § III; Doc. 13, Notice of Appearance.)
Wilkerson alleges that, on August 28, 2009, he received misconduct number B153891 from Defendant Hengst charging him with lying to an employee, disobeying a direct order, refusing to work, and refusing to attend school or mandatory programs or encouraging others to do the same. (Doc. 1 at 2 § IV. ¶ 1.) He alleges that the misconduct was a "total falsehood." (Id. ¶ 2.) Wilkerson claims that the misconduct caused him to be denied a favorable recommendation by the SCI Huntingdon administration and "incompletion of a mandatory program that would have assured [him] a possibility of being reparoled and completing some beneficial programs that would [have] improved [his] skills once [he] was released." (Id. ¶ 3.) He avers that, once he was released from segregation, he still had to complete the parole violator's group, and he was denied parole. (See id.)
Wilkerson also alleges that, on September 1, 2009, Defendant Mitchell presided over a hearing on the misconduct charges. (See id.) He alleges that Mitchell denied him his right to explain himself at the very beginning by interrupting him. (Id. at 2-3.) He further alleges that Defendant Mitchell asked if he had a copy of the witness form, and Wilkerson responded that he was told by Defendant Hengst that he was to receive the witness form and a copy was to be given to Wilkerson at a later time. (Id. at 3.) Defendant Mitchell sentenced Wilkerson to thirty (30) days in the Restricted Housing Unit ("RHU"). (Id.)
Wilkerson alleges that he appealed Mitchell's decision to the Program Review Committee ("PRC"), consisting of Defendants Corbin, Fisher, and Ciavarella, and that the PRC upheld the decision without reviewing the camera footage pursuant to Wilkerson's request and without informing Wilkerson what evidence they found that made him guilty. (Id.) Wilkerson also alleges that he appealed further to Defendant Lawler, but that he also denied him due process by failing to review the camera footage. (Id.)
As relief, Wilkerson seeks to have his classification status reinstated to where it was prior to the misconduct; a favorable recommendation along with being reparoled; monetary relief from all parties for their denial of his due process rights; and "no retaliation by the issuing officer or his co-workers or any ill treatment by staff at SCI Huntingdon". (Doc. 1 at 4 § V.) In addition, in the supplement to his ...