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.

Kloss v. SCI Albion/Pa D.O.C.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

June 28, 2017

Daniel A. Kloss, Plaintiff,
SCI Albion/PA D.O.C. Defendants.




         Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable Susan Paradise Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff s eight motions (ECF Nos. 135, 136, 146, 158, 162, 165, 174, and 179), all of which are construed as motions for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 195). Plaintiff timely filed objections to the R&R (ECF No. 206). Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiffs objections thereto, the record of the case, and the relevant law, the Court HEREBY ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DENIES Plaintiff s motions for preliminary injunction.


         Plaintiff, Daniel A. Kloss, an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in Albion, Pennsylvania, filed uprose complaint on November 23, 2015, alleging sexual harassment, denial of medical treatment, violation of his First Amendment "Right for Religion, " and violations of the "Federal Disability Act." (ECF No. 1 (Compl. at ¶ 4)). In addition, he requests that he be "placed back in the same cell and unit as [inmate] Jamie Butler." (ECF No. 1 (Compl. at¶ 6)). In Plaintiffs Proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff reiterates several issues, and raises new ones. Among other things, Plaintiff alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), unsafe prison conditions on housing units, procrastination and refusal of medical care, harassment, unwanted and unwarranted pain, and deliberate medical indifference. (ECFNo. 86).

         Including the motions currently before the court, Plaintiff has filed approximately twenty-two motions that have been titled or construed as motions for preliminary injunctions. (ECF Nos. 10, 42, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 58, 67, 79, 108, 109, 126, 130, 135, 136, 146, 158, 162, 165. 174, and 179). The Court will discuss the motions addressed in the May 23, 2017 R&R. (ECF No. 195).

         On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a "motion from abuse, " requesting a hearing and to be transferred to another jail after corrections officer Sgt. Mazzone was reassigned to Plaintiff s unit. (ECF No. 135). In the past, Plaintiff had alleged that Sgt. Mazzone sexually assaulted and repeatedly harassed him. Defendants state that Plaintiff s complaints against Sgt. Mazzone were fully investigated and deemed unfounded. (ECF No. 137). Notably, Sgt. Mazzone is not a named Defendant. In Plaintiff s objections, he alleges the investigation was not properly examined. (ECF No. 206). Plaintiffs objections seek the "removal of the denial of ECF No. 135 and to wait for PREA's [Prison Rape Elimination Act] final finding." (ECF No. 206 at 1).

         On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second motion for preliminary injunction, "motion for health care." (ECF No. 136). Plaintiff complains he was mistakenly sent to the wrong hospital for a specialty stomach procedure and alleges he never received a previous surgery that was ordered by Magistrate Judge Baxter. However, Defendants point out that Magistrate Judge Baxter has never ordered any medical procedure in this case. (ECF No. 138). Moreover, Defendants indicate Plaintiff has been receiving the proper medical care and attention, and in fact, Plaintiff has refused procedures because he wants to dictate the terms of his medical care. (ECF No. 138 at 2). In his objections, Plaintiff states that he does not "dictate where I want to go, I know where the procedures can be done." (ECF No. 206 at 2). Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider his "motion for health care." (Id.)

         On April 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a "motion to enter 3 months of harassment, " alleging violations of his civil rights between the months of January 2017 through March 2017. (ECF No. 146). Plaintiff complains of, inter alia, his testosterone shots and thyroid medication (ECF No. 146-1 at 1, 3, 4), violation of his privacy rights and rights to practice religion (Id. at 1, 2), medical decisions regarding his stomach procedure (Id. at 3; see also ECF No. 136), the delay of pain medication (ECF No. 146-1 at 4), wheelchair and dining hall issues (Id. at 2, 5) and the cancellation of appointments (Id. at 3). Additionally, in Plaintiff s "motion for emergency medical injunction" filed on May 5, 2017, Plaintiff again complains of his medical care. (ECF No. 162). Defendants maintain Plaintiff continues to have access to medical care and that Plaintiffs motion does not implicate any emergency or threat of irreparable harm. (ECF No. 189). Defendants further contend Plaintiffs motions are substantially similar to requests that have been previously denied by the Court. (ECF No. 190).

         On April 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a "motion to put my RRRI release date back, " asserting that his RRRI (Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive) early release date of August 21, 2017 was removed without any explanation. (ECF No. 158). Plaintiff avers that the removal of his RRRI date was made in retaliation to this lawsuit. Defendants indicate Plaintiff was decertified from RRRI eligibility as a result of his latest misconduct. (ECF No. 187). Defendants also highlight Plaintiffs motion does not relate to the issues in the underlying complaint, and any motion seeking early release sounds in habeas corpus. (ECF No. 187). In his objections, Plaintiff claims his misconduct reports were "false and went against his disability rights." (ECF No. 206 at 3). Plaintiff seeks to keep his original RRRI date and asks the court "to put it back." (Id)

         On May 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a "motion injunction for non-live-in aide, " alleging violations of the "Federal Disability Act" for being denied a live-in aide. (ECFNo. 165). Plaintiff requests that he be assigned a personal aide to push his wheelchair, clean his cell, and change his sheets. (Id.) Again, Plaintiff complains of his medical care, stomach issues and RRRI release date. Defendants state there is no personal "aide" position within the prison where an inmate is specifically assigned to assist another inmate. (ECFNo. 188). Defendants uphold that Plaintiff's housing and medical needs continue to be met. (Id)

         Further, on May 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed motions for emergency hearings regarding his security level, housing codes and length of confinement. (ECFNo. 174 & 175). Notably, Plaintiff has written numerous letters to the Court raising various concerns regarding his treatment in prison, despite the Court's order that he not attempt ex parte communication through such letters. (ECF No. 23).

         Thereafter, on May 23, 2017, Magistrate Judge Baxter issued the R&R, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiffs eight motions for preliminary injunction because Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of showing either immediate irreparable injury or a likelihood of success on the merits. (ECF No. 195). The R&R suggests Plaintiff has exhausted the Court's time and resources on matters that have been found to be "groundless, repetitive, misleading and vexatious." (Id.). Magistrate Judge Baxter further states that Plaintiffs disagreements with Defendants medical judgment and care are not actionable and concludes the Court will not override the professional judgment of medical practitioners charged with the Plaintiffs care. Finally, Magistrate Judge Baxter admonishes Plaintiff of its displeasure with Plaintiffs repeated motions and states the Court will consider sanctions should any subsequent frivolous motions be filed. (Id. at 8).

         Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 206). In addition to Plaintiff's objections noted above, Plaintiff largely restates his narrative of grievances regarding his medical care and confinement. Specifically, Plaintiff claims there is a "deliberate medical indifference" in which he believes medical procedures have been "deliberately cancelled, " thus causing him to suffer. (Id. 206 at 4). It appears that Plaintiff also believes that SCI-Albion prison officials forced him into the infirmary, again violating what he calls the "Federal Disability Act." (Id. at 5). Plaintiff further claims reports of his misconduct were false and violated his disability rights (Id. at 3). Plaintiff avers he is being punished for wanting to marry fellow inmate Jamie Butler, ...

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.