United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge.
pro se civil rights action was filed by Anthony
Lamancusa, an inmate presently confined at Rockview State
Correctional Institution, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania
(SCI-Rockview). Service of the Complaint was previously
ordered Named as Defendants are two SCI-Rockview officials,
Superintendent Mark Garman and Inmate Accounts Manager Brian
Miller. Plaintiff describes himself as being “mentally
incompetent and disabled.” Doc. 1, ¶ 1. As a
result, Lamancusa claims that he is unable to perform prison
employment. Plaintiff states that all SCI-Rockview inmates
should receive $ 15.00 per month in idle pay until they are
physically able to work and inmates who are medical patients
should be given a monthly $ 10.00 medical allowance. See
id. at ¶ 4. According to the sparsely worded
Complaint, Plaintiff has been subjected to a retaliatory
denial of medical allowance and idle pay because of his
mental disability. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.
responded to the complaint by filing a motion to dismiss, or
in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. See
Doc. 15. The opposed motion is ripe for consideration.
argue that the Complaint cannot proceed because: (1)
Lamancusa failed to exhaust his available administrative
remedies, (2) there are no assertion of personal involvement
by Defendants in any acts of constitutional misconduct; and
(3) a viable allegation of retaliation has not been raised.
pending dispositive motion is supported by evidentiary
materials outside the pleadings. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(d) provides in part as follows:
If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside
the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court,
the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under
Rule 56. All parties must be given reasonable opportunity to
present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.
Civ. P. 12(b)(d).
Court will not exclude the evidentiary materials accompanying
the Defendants' motion. Thus, their motion will be
treated as solely seeking summary judgment. See Latham v.
United States, 306 Fed.Appx. 716, 718 (3d Cir.
2009)(when a motion to dismiss has been framed alternatively
as a motion for summary judgment such as in the present case,
the alternative filing “is sufficient to place the
parties on notice that summary judgment might be
judgment is proper if “the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials on file, together with 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).
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.