United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
BRIAN C. MOORE, Plaintiff,
ANGELA D. MANN, et al. ., Defendants.
Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge.
Brian C. Moore, an inmate currently confined at the State
Correctional Institution at Mahanoy in Frackville,
Pennsylvania, filed this pro se civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter proceeds on an
amended complaint. (Doc. 10.) Named as Defendants are John
Wetzel, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, and the
following seven (7) employees at the State Correctional
Institution at Coal Township (SCI-Coal Township),
Plaintiff's former place of confinement: Angela Mann,
Counselor; Renee Foulds, Unit Manager; Correctional Officers
Hering, Briner, Zamboni and Long; and David Varano, former
alleges that while confined at SCI-Coal Township in August
and September 2011, he saw Defendant Mann participating in a
sexual act with an inmate. During this same period of time,
Mann began discussing the details of Plaintiff's criminal
case with other staff members and inmates. In September 2011,
Mann told another staff member, who then told Defendant
Foulds, that Plaintiff had an “attitude problem.”
(Doc. 10, Am. Compl. at 3.) In or about September or October
2011, Mann told Defendant Hering in front of other staff
members and inmates on Unit B-2 that Plaintiff was “out
of his mind, ” is a “child rapist, ” and
“belongs in a psychiatric hospital.” In October
of 2011, Mann is also alleged to have told Defendant Briner
that he would be glad when Plaintiff left the institution
because he was a snitch and a pedophile.
result of Defendants discussing his criminal case with
inmates and staff members, Plaintiff claims he was threatened
with bodily harm at SCI-Coal Township in 2011-2012, as well
as at SCI-Smithfiled in 2013. He alleges that he brought his
concerns about Mann's behavior to Defendant Foulds in
November 14, 2011, Plaintiff states he again observed Mann
engaging in sexual activities in her office on B-2 Unit with
an inmate. (Id. at 3.) Although Defendants Zamboni
and Briner were aware that this activity was taking place,
they did nothing to stop it. (Id. at 4.) When the
inmate left, Plaintiff entered Mann's office. On the same
date, during the 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. shift, Mann wrote a
misconduct report on Plaintiff (#429102) and charged him with
sexual harassment. After being found guilty, Plaintiff was
sanctioned to 270 days in the Restricted Housing Unit. He
forfeited months of earned wages because of this report.
grievance was filed with respect to these issues (#401780),
and it was investigated by Defendant Long. Defendant Varano
was also made aware of the allegations pursuant to the
grievance appeal and Defendant Wetzel was made aware pursuant
to a letter Plaintiff sent to the Office of Professional
Responsibility in March 2012. (Id. at 4.) That
month, Plaintiff was interviewed by an officer from the
Office of Special Investigations and Intelligence.
on the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and
monetary relief for violations of substantive due process;
deliberate indifference to his health and safety; defamation
and intentional infliction of emotional distress under
Pennsylvania state tort law; violations of the Pennsylvania
Constitution and the DOC's sexual harassment policy with
respect to sexual contact with inmates; and violations of
Pennsylvania and Federal statutes prohibiting sexual contact
between prison employees and inmates. (Id. at 5.)
motion to stay discovery was granted pending the resolution
of a motion to dismiss Defendants filed on October 29, 2014.
February 17, 2015, ECF Nos. 50, 51. Defendants' motion to
dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. June 16,
2015, ECF Nos. 52, 53. Wetzel and Varano were dismissed from
this action, along with all claims against the Defendants in
their official capacities for monetary damages, all state law
tort claims, all due process claims and all claims of
violation of criminal statutes and DOC regulations. The
motion to dismiss was denied with respect to the Eighth
Amendment failure to protect claim against the remaining six
scheduling order was issued directing that all discovery be
completed on or before December 22, 2015, and any dispositive
motions be filed by January 22, 2016. June 22, 2015, ECF No.
55. An order was later issued dismissing, without prejudice
to renewal, discovery motions filed by Plaintiff because he
had failed to file supporting briefs. September 30, 2015, ECF
No. 62. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and a
supporting declaration and brief. October 30, 2015, ECF Nos.
65-67. This motion has been opposed by Defendants. November
2, 2015, ECF No. 68. Plaintiff then moved to extend the
discovery deadline and for the issuance of subpoenas.
November 18, 2015, ECF No. 70; November 20, 2015, ECF No. 76.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment supported by a
brief, a statement of material facts and an appendix.
November 19, 2015, ECF Nos. 72-74.
order was issued provisionally granting Plaintiff's
motion to extend the discovery deadline, if necessary,
following the resolution of Defendants' summary judgment
motion, and denying without prejudice Plaintiff's request
for the issuance of subpoenas. November 24, 2015, ECF No. 78.
Discovery was stayed until the summary judgment motion was
resolved finding that a stay was appropriate because the
summary judgment motion was potentially
did oppose Defendants' motion for summary judgment by
filing a brief, exhibits and a statement of
facts. December 18, 2015, ECF Nos. 81-83.
Plaintiff has moved to lift the stay on discovery and filed a
brief in support thereof. October 13, 2016, ECF Nos. 87, 88.
this Court has issued an Order stating that no further
discovery will be permitted until after Defendants'
motion for summary judgment is resolved, it is clear that
Plaintiff filed his motion to compel discovery on October 30,
2015, prior to the issuance of the Order, and in response to
the Court's dismissal of said motion, without prejudice,
because Plaintiff failed to file a supporting brief.
September 30, 2015, ECF No. 62. Plaintiff re-filed his motion
to compel with a supporting brief and this motion has been
opposed by Defendants. These filings were all made prior to
the filing by Defendants of their motion for summary
judgment. As such, any further discovery will remain stayed,
but Defendants' motion for summary judgment will be
denied, without prejudice to re-file and supplement,
following the resolution of ...