United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
DAVID A. MACK, Plaintiff
ROBERT BILGER, SAFETY MANAGER, et al., Defendants
RICHARD CAPUTO United States District Judge
Mack, a former state prisoner housed at the State
Correctional Institution at Huntingdon (SCI-Huntingdon), in
Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, filed this pro se civil
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 20, 2013
while still incarcerated. He filed an Amended Complaint on
August 13, 2014. (ECF No. 37, Am. Compl.) Presently before
the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 66) filed
by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC)
Defendants. Defendants seek summary judgment on the
basis that Mr. Mack failed to exhaust his available
administrative remedies as to several claims, failed to state
a claim against several Defendants, and failed to state an
Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement or medical claim.
(Id.) Mr. Mack has failed to respond to
Defendants' motion for summary judgment or otherwise
communicate with the Court since his June 1, 2015 release on
reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.
Summary Judgment Standard of Review
judgment is proper where “the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The court must determine “whether
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,
admissions on file, and affidavits show that there is no
genuine issue of material fact and whether the moving party
is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
MacFarlan v. Ivy Hill SNF, LLC, 675 F.3d 266, 271
(3d Cir. 2012)(citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)).
“[T]his standard provides that the mere existence of
some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not
defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary
judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue
of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 - 48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2509 - 10,
91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In reviewing a motion for summary
judgment, the court must view all facts and draw all
reasonable inferences “in the light most favorable to
the party opposing the motion.” Blunt v. Lower
Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir.
2014)(internal quotation marks omitted).
prevail on summary judgment, the moving party must
affirmatively identify those portions of the record which
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Santini v. Fuentes, 795 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 2015)
(citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2553).
“A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is
genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to
particular parts of materials in the record ... or showing
that the materials cited do not establish the absence or
presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party
cannot produce admissible evidence to support the
fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A) - (B). To withstand
summary judgment, the non-moving party must “go beyond
the pleadings” and “designate ‘specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.'” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106
S.Ct. at 2553 (citation omitted). The non-moving party
“may not rest on speculation and conjecture in opposing
a motion for summary judgment.” Ramara, Inc. v.
Westfield Ins. Co., 814 F.3d 660, 666 (3d Cir. 2016).
Where contradictory facts exist, the court may not make
credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. See
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133,
150 - 51, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2110, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted);
Paradisis v. Englewood Hosp. Med. Ctr., No. 16-3616,
2017 WL 728688, at *3 (3d Cir. Feb. 24, 2017).
Statement of Material Facts
the pleadings, declarations and exhibits submitted therewith,
the following facts are ascertained as undisputed or, where
disputed, reflect Mr. Mack's version of the facts,
pursuant to this Court's duty to view all facts and
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106
S.Ct. at 2510.
Mack was housed at SCI-Huntingdon during the relevant time
period, September 2011 through November 22, 2011. (ECF No.
69, Defs.' Statement of Undisputed Facts (DSMF) ¶
2.) He was transferred to SCI-Frackville on November 22,
2011. (DSMF ¶ 19.) Mr. Mack was paroled on June 1, 2015.
(DSMF ¶ 1.)
September 2, 2011, Mr. Mack informed Lt. Johnson that he
feared for his life. (DSMF ¶ 3; ECF No. 69-1, Defs.'
Exhs. Summ. J., p. 2.) Mr. Mack was placed in protective
custody pending a hearing with the Program Review Committee
(PRC). (Id.) On September 7, 2011, the PRC
(consisting of J. Keller, M. Garman and J. Eckard), after
listening to Mr. Mack, ordered him back to general
population. (DSMF ¶ 4 and ECF No. 69-1, p. 4.) From
September 7 through September 9, 2011, Mr. Mack was housed on
the third tier of D-Block. (DSMF ¶ 5.) On September 9,
2011, Mr. Mack told Deputy Supt. Eckard that he did not feel
safe on D-Block. (DSMF ¶ 6.) Mr. Mack was then moved
from D-Block to C-Block. (Id.)
September 13, 2011 Fall in C-Block
September 9, 2011, Mr. Mack was assigned to the top bunk of
cell #3030 on the third tier of C-Block. (DSMF ¶ 7.) The
bunkbed in the cell was installed with the ladder and
security rail against the wall. (DSMF ¶ 8.) On Saturday,
September 10, 2011, Mr. Mack advised Sgt. Emeigh that the
bunkbed was improperly installed. (DSMF ¶ 9.) On Monday,
September 12, 2011, work order #3295 was filed to have the
bunk in Mr. Mack's cell turned. (DSMF ...