United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
RICHARD P. CONABOY, District Judge.
Paul Peraza, an inmate presently confined at the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (USP-Lewisburg) filed this pro se Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) action. Named as Defendant is the United States of America. Service of the Complaint was previously ordered.
Peraza's action seeks relief with respect to events which occurred during his prior confinement at the Canaan United States Penitentiary, Waymart, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff alleges that on or May 11, 2011 four USP-Canaan correctional officers (Schwartz, Dominick, Moran, and Borning) forced him to fight with his cell mate in order to get a housing reassignment. It is next asserted that Correctional Officer Schwartz verbally abused Plaintiff and identified him as being a child molester as the inmate was being removed from his cell.
Thereafter, the four officers purportedly allegedly physically and excessively assaulted Peraza after escorting him from his cell to a security camera blind spot. Plaintiff asserts that this attack included a sexual battery in that one of the officers ran his hand over the inmate's buttocks. As a result of the alleged incident, Plaintiff states that he suffered loss of vison in his left eye for approximately five minutes; dizziness; nausea; a sprained left ankle; and a forehead laceration that caused nerve damage.
Presently pending is Defendant's motion seeking entry of partial summary judgment. See Doc. 22. The opposed motion is ripe for consideration.
Defendant claims entitlement to entry of partial summary judgment on the grounds that "Peraza failed to exhaust administrative tort claims concerning all of the issues stated in his complaint." Doc. 27, p. 1.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment is proper if "the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); See also Saldana v. Kmart Corp. , 260 F.3d 228, 231-32 (3d Cir. 2001). A factual dispute is "material" if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A factual dispute is "genuine" only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis that would allow a reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id . at 248. The court must resolve all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact in favor of the non-moving party. Saldana , 260 F.3d at 232; see also Reeder v. Sybron Transition Corp. , 142 F.R.D. 607, 609 (M.D. Pa. 1992). Unsubstantiated arguments made in briefs are not considered evidence of asserted facts. Versarge v. Township of Clinton , 984 F.2d 1359, 1370 (3d Cir. 1993).
Once the moving party has shown that there is an absence of evidence to support the claims of the non-moving party, the non-moving party may not simply sit back and rest on the allegations in its complaint. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). Instead, it must "go beyond the pleadings and by [its] own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id . (internal quotations omitted); see also Saldana , 260 F.3d at 232 (citations omitted). Summary judgment should be granted where a party "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden at trial." Celotex , 477 U.S. at 322-23. "Such affirmative evidence - regardless of whether it is direct or circumstantial - must amount to more than a scintilla, but may amount to less (in the evaluation of the court) than a preponderance.'" Saldana , 260 F.3d at 232 (quoting Williams v. Borough of West Chester , 891 F.2d 458, 460-61 (3d Cir. 1989)).
The FTCA provides a remedy in damages for the simple negligence of employees of the United States. See United States v. Muniz , 374 U.S. 150, 150 (1963). Under the FTCA, sovereign immunity is waived against persons suing the federal government for the commission of various torts. See Simon v. United States , 341 F.3d 193, 200 (3d Cir. 2003).
A plaintiff pursuing an FTCA claim must show: (1) that a duty was owed to him by a defendant; (2) a negligent breach of said duty; and (3) that the negligent breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury/loss. Mahler v. United States , 196 F.Supp. 362, 364 (W.D. Pa. 1961). The only proper Defendant for purposes of an FTCA claim is the United States of America. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d). Except for limited circumstances, an FTCA claim in federal court is limited to recovery of the sum certain ...