Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Mcintosh v. Sabol

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

April 13, 2017

THOMAS SIMEON MCINTOSH, Plaintiff
v.
MARY SABOL et al., Defendants

          MEMORANDUM

          Robert D. Mariani United States District Judge

         Plaintiff, Thomas Mcintosh ("Mcintosh"), an inmate formerly confined at the York County Prison, in York, Pennsylvania, initiated the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[1] (Doc. 1). The matter is proceeding via an amended complaint wherein Mcintosh names facility manager John McCoy as the sole Defendant. (Doc. 11). Presently pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Doc. 17). Mcintosh failed to file a brief in opposition to Defendant's motion. The motion is deemed ripe for disposition and, for the reasons set forth below, will be granted.

         I. Summary Judgment Standard of Review

         Through summary adjudication, the court may dispose of those claims that do not present a "genuine dispute as to any material fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). "As to materiality, ... [o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

         The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once such a showing has been made, the non-moving party must offer specific facts contradicting those averred by the movant to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Lujan v. Natl Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990). Therefore, the non-moving party may not oppose summary judgment simply on the basis of the pleadings, or on conclusory statements that a factual issue exists. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. "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). In evaluating whether summary judgment should be granted, "[t]he court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3). "Inferences should be drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and where the non-moving party's evidence contradicts the movant's, then the non-movant's must be taken as true." Big Apple BMW, inc. v. BMW of N. Am., inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3d Cir.1992), cert, denied 507 U.S. 912 (1993).

         However, "facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a 'genuine' dispute as to those facts." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1776, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). If a party has carried its burden under the summary judgment rule,

its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial. 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. When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.

Id. (internal quotations, citations, and alterations omitted).

         II- Statement of Undisputed Facts [2]

         Mcintosh alleges that he was injured on July 17, 2012, [3] when he slipped and fell due to a dangerous physical condition at the prison, water that was leaking from the ceiling onto the steps in the New South B Pod, (Doc. 11, Amended Complaint, ¶ 4; Doc, 17-2, Statement of Material Facts, ¶ 10). Mcintosh alleges that Defendant knew of the water leak, failed to fix the leak, and thus, placed him in danger of harm. (Doc. 11, ¶¶ 1-2).

         Defendant McCoy is the facility manager of the York County Prison. (Doc. 17-2, ¶ 1; Doc. 17-3, Affidavit of John McCoy, ¶ 1). As the facility manager, Defendant is responsible for supervising the maintenance and repair of the prison. (Doc. 17-1, ¶ 2; Doc. 17-3, ¶ 2). At all relevant times, a procedure was in place to notify Defendant of any maintenance or repair needs that were found at the York County Prison. (Doc. 17-2, ¶ 3; Doc. 17-3, ¶ 3).

         The York County Prison has an inmate complaint review system that permits all inmates to file a written complaint concerning their living conditions, designated as an 801 complaint. (Doc. 17-2, ¶ 4; Doc. 17-4, Affidavit of Clair Doll, ¶¶ 34). The inmate complaint review system requires every complaint to be investigated and reviewed by the grievance coordinators or grievance supervisor. (Doc. 17-2, ¶ 5; Doc. 17-4, ¶ 5). The inmate has the right to appeal to the Deputy Warden, the Prison Board Solicitor, and the York County Prison Board. (Doc. 17-2, ¶ 5; Doc. 17-4, ¶¶ 6-9). All inmate complaints are entered into a computer system and are part of the inmate's prison records. (Doc. 17-2, ¶ 5). If a complaint involves the prison environment, such as a claim of a leaking roof, a staff member must provide a maintenance request form to the facility maintenance manager, Defendant McCoy. (Doc. 17-2, ¶ 6; Doc. 17-3, ¶ 4).

         Mcintosh was housed in New South B Pod at the York County Prison. (Doc. 17-2, ¶ 7). Defendant was not aware of a leaking roof in New South B Pod on or before July 17, 2012. (Doc. 17-2, ¶ 11; Doc. 17-3, ¶ 8). Prior to July 17, 2012, there were no inmate complaints regarding a leaking roof in the York County Prison. (Doc. 17-2, ¶ 7; Doc. 17-4, ¶ 11). Prior to July 17, 2012, Defendant McCoy never received an inmate complaint form, or any other evidence of any inmate grievance involving a leaking roof in New South B Pod. (Doc. 17-2, ¶¶ 9-10; Doc. 17-3, ¶¶ 5, 7). Prior to July 17, 2012, there were no staff reports of a leaking roof ...


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.