United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Ronald Goode, proceeding pro se, brings this suit against
Defendant Lieutenant James Hamilton for alleged violations of
his constitutional rights stemming from his incarceration at
Curran-Frumhold Correctional Facility ("CFCF") in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Defendant Hamilton has filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56. (Doc. No. 93.) This Motion is presently before
the Court for a decision.
Ronald Goode alleges that he suffered federal civil rights
violations by being placed in a segregated housing unit at
CFCR (Doc. No. 54.) The Fourth Amended Complaint alleges that
Plaintiff was moved to the segregated housing unit after
being assaulted by two inmates. (Id.) He contends
that while in segregated housing, he did not receive proper
medical treatment, was not permitted to attend religious
services, and was not permitted to "exhaust ... my
courts [sic] administrative remedies." (Id.)
According to Plaintiff, these deprivations violated of his
right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment and his right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment under the Eighth Amendment, triggering civil
liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id.)
28, 2013, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action
against Defendants. (Doc. No. 3.) After a Fourth Amended
Complaint ("FAC") was filed, Defendant Hamilton
filed an Answer to the FAC. (Doc. Nos. 54, 56.) The parties
proceeded to discovery. After discovery concluded, Defendant
Hamilton filed the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 93.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
summary judgment is an extraordinary remedy. Summary judgment
is appropriate "if 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). In reaching this decision, the court must determine
whether "the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits show there is no
genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Favata v.
Seidel, 511 F.App'x 155, 158 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting
Azur v. Chase Bank, USA, Nat'l Ass'n, 601
F.3d 212, 216 (3d Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted)). A disputed
issue is "genuine" only if there is a sufficient
evidentiary basis on which a reasonable jury could find for
the non-moving party. Kaucher v. Cnty. of Bucks. 455
F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). For a fact to be
considered "material, " it "must have the
potential to alter the outcome of the case."
Favata, 511 F.App'x at 158. Once the proponent
of summary judgment "points to evidence demonstrating no
issue of material fact exists, the non-moving party has the
duty to set forth specific facts showing that a genuine issue
of material fact exists and that a reasonable factfinder
could rule in its favor." IcL (quoting Azur,
601 F.3d at 216 (internal quotation marks omitted)).
deciding a motion for summary judgment, "[t]he evidence
of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable
inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Id.
(quoting Chambers ex rel. Chambers v. Sch. Dist. of
Philadelphia Bd. of Educ, 587 F.3d 176, 181 (3d Cir.
2009) (quotation omitted)). The Court's task is not to
resolve disputed issues of fact, but to determine whether
there exist any factual issues to be tried.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-49. Whenever a factual
issue arises which cannot be resolved without a credibility
determination, at this stage the court must credit the
non-moving party's evidence over that presented by the
moving party. Id. at 255. If there is no factual
issue, and if only one reasonable conclusion could arise from
the record regarding the potential outcome under the
governing law, summary judgment must be awarded in favor of
the moving party. Id. at 250.
raises a claim against Lieutenant James Hamilton pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"). (Doc. No.
54.) Plaintiff alleges that he was placed in the segregated
housing unit at CFCF for a couple of weeks after he was
assaulted by two inmates. (Id.). He alleges that he
was denied medical treatment, religious accommodations, and
the ability to exhaust administrative remedies while in the
segregated housing unit, which he contends amounted to a
violation of his right to procedural due process under the
Fourteenth Amendment and his right to be free from cruel and
unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. (Id.)
Hamilton argues in the Motion for Summary Judgment that the
Section 1983 claim should be dismissed for two reasons. (Doc.
No. 93 at 3.) First, Defendant Hamilton argues that Plaintiff
has failed to show that a constitutional violation occurred.
(Id. at 5-6.) Second, Defendant Hamilton asserts
that Plaintiff has failed to identify evidence showing
Defendant Hamilton's personal involvement in the alleged
wrongdoing. (Id. at 7-8.) For reasons that follow,
this Court agrees with Defendant's arguments and will
grant the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 93).
Plaintiff Has Not Produced Facts Showing an
Underlying Violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment or the Eighth Amendment
Plaintiff Has Failed to Show a Fourteenth ...