DIMAS SANTIAGO, Plaintiff.
SCI CAMP HILL MED. DEPT. PSYCHIATRY NAME UNKNOWN, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THOMAS M. BLEWITT, Magistrate Judge.
On November 4, 2013, Plaintiff Dimas Santiago, an inmate confined in the State Correctional Institute at Benner Township located in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, filed, pro se, this instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). Also on November 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Prisoner Authorization Form. (Doc. 3). The Court provided Plaintiff with a copy of its Standing Practice Order (Doc. 5) on November 5, 2013, and an Administrative Order requesting Plaintiff's inmate account statement for the past six (6) months was sent to Plaintiff on November 5, 2013. (Doc. 6).
II. ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff has filed his § 1983 Complaint against the following Defendants: (1) SCI Camp Hill Med. Dept. Psychiatry Name Unknown; (2) C.O. Simpson; (3) C.O. Stone; (4) Unit Manager Gegler; (4) SCI Benner Med. Dept. PA Ms. Lehy; (5) Ms. Martinez; (6) Sargent Schul; and (7) F Block Unit Manager Mr. K. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-2). Plaintiff's typed Statement of Claim consists of three (3) paragraphs. ( Id., p. 2). Plaintiff alleges that on April 25, 2013, he was transferred to SCI Camp Hill and was seen by an unknown female in the Psychiatry Department. ( Id ). Plaintiff also alleges that "she prescribed me medication that was rising my blood pressure and gave me a lot of chest pain I was to the point of fainting multiple times." ( Id ). Plaintiff further states that he told her the medications that he takes and that he has high blood pressure. ( Id ). Plaintiff next states that "[o]n July 12, 2013 July 15 my Attorney Melissa Montgomery call me to speak to me about my appeal pending on Superior Court of PA twice C.O. Simpson and C.O. Stone failed to open my cell door on time to speak to my counsel causing a delay on my appeal process." ( Id ). Plaintiff goes on to state that on September 11, 2013 he went to sick call and Ms. Lehy disagreed that he needed bottom bunk status as he was assigned by SCI Camp Hill. ( Id ). Also, Plaintiff states that on another date she took his lunch bag that he was getting as a diabetic and told him that he does not get insulin. ( Id ). Plaintiff states that Ms. Lehy is discriminating against the Hispanic population in SCI Benner since "SCI Cressent the SCI that was closed for mistreatment and killing of inmates." ( Id ). Finally, Plaintiff states that Ms. Martinez did not house him with a non-smoker as he requested. ( Id ). Plaintiff alleges that he has exhausted his administrative remedy procedure because "grievances were denied by administration." ( Id ).
In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff requests the following: (1) $50, 000.00 award; and (2) $50.000.00 and for the resignation of Defendant Lehy and for Plaintiff not to be assigned with a smoker. ( Id ).
Because Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, we are required to screen his Complaint in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA").
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995
As stated, the Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2). The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995,  (the "PLRA"), obligates the Court to engage in a screening process when a prisoner wishes to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Specifically, Section 1915(e)(2), which was created by § 805(a)(5) of the Act, provides:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Furthermore, under the PLRA, a court may sua sponte bar a claim from proceeding in forma pauperis under the "three strikes" rule. Under the PLRA, it is the court's responsibility to assess whether an action may proceed in forma pauperis, and a court may dismiss in forma pauperis sua sponte. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2), 1915A. Thus, this Court has the authority to raise, sua sponte, the issue of whether plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under § 1915 (g). See Gibbs v. Ryan, 160 F.3d 160, 162, n. 2 (3d Cir. 1998).
During the screening process of Plaintiff's Complaint, we discovered that Plaintiff may be barred from filing suits in forma pauperis under the PLRA's ...