Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williamson v. Garman

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

January 9, 2017




         Plaintiff Sharif Williamson ("Plaintiff'), an inmate currently confined at the Rockview State Correctional Institution, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Rockview"), commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). The matter is proceeding via an amended complaint. (Doc. 28). Named as Defendants are the following employees of SCI-Rockview: Mark Garman, Superintendent; Eric Tice, Deputy Superintendent for Facilities Management; Nathan Lehman, Lieutenant; Jeff Rackovan, Corrections Superintendent's Assistant and Facility Grievance Coordinator; and Officers Clark, Leidhecker, Myers, Phillips, Tubbs, Weaver, and Intallura, (collectively, "Corrections Defendants"). (Id. at pp. 2-4).

         Presently pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 29). Despite being directed to file a brief in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 27, ¶ 4), Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion and the time for responding has now passed. In the absence of any timely response by Plaintiff, the motion is deemed ripe for resolution, For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss, and grant Plaintiff a final opportunity to amend his complaint.

         I. Standard of Review

         A complaint must be dismissed under Fed, R, Civ, P. 12(b)(6), if it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp, v, Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The plaintiff must aver "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

         "Though a complaint 'does not need detailed factual allegations, ... a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" DelRio-Mocci v. Connolly Prop, Inc., 672 F.3d 241, 245 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In other words, "factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Covington v. Int'l Ass'n of Approved Basketball Officials, 710 F.3d 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A court "take[s] as true all the factual allegations in the Complaint and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts, but... disregard[s] legal conclusions and threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." Ethypharm S.A. France v, Abbott Laboratories, 707 F.3d 223, 231, n.14 (3d Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

         Twombly and Iqbal require [a district court] to take the following three steps to determine the sufficiency of a complaint: First, the court must take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim. Second, the court should identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Finally, where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief. Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch, Dist, 706 F.3d 209, 212 (3d Cir. 2013).

         "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not show[n] - that the pleader is entitled to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). This "plausibility" determination will be a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id.

         However, even "if a complaint is subject to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a district court must permit a curative amendment unless such an amendment would be inequitable or futile." Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 245 (3d Cir. 2008).

[E]ven when plaintiff does not seek leave to amend his complaint after a defendant moves to dismiss it, unless the district court finds that amendment would be inequitable or futile, the court must inform the plaintiff that he or she has leave to amend the complaint within a set period of time.


         II- Allegations of the Amended Complaint[1]

         Plaintiff alleges that, on June 8, 2015, he was transferred to the restricted housing unit ("RHU") at SCI-Rockview and subjected to a strip search. (Doc, 28, p. 4). Upon arrival to the RHU, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lehman directed seven officers to place him on the floor, (Id.). He claims that the officers cut off his clothes, placed their weight on his body, and spread his buttocks apart, (Id.). Plaintiff assert that the officers used unnecessary force, derived sexual pleasure from the strip search, the search was conducted in an unprofessional and illegal manner, and belittled him. (Id. at p. 5). ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.