United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
JOHN A. PINO, Plaintiff
MICHAEL CAREY, et al., Defendants
MALACHY E. MANNION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the court is the report of Magistrate Judge Carlson,
(Doc. 69), which recommend that defendant
Carey's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 41),
be granted. All of the other defendants in this case, except
for defendant Carey, have previously been dismissed. Also
pending is the motion of plaintiff for a second extension of
time to object to Judge Carlson's report and/or a motion
to hold the case in abeyance. (Doc. 72).
Plaintiff's request to hold this case in abeyance will be
denied. The court will grant plaintiff's second request
for an extension of time to file his objections.
by way of background, on June 16, 2015, the plaintiff filed,
pro se, the instant civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging violations of his
constitutional rights by the defendants in relation to events
leading to his arrest, conviction and current term of
imprisonment at SCI- Houtzdale. (Doc. 1). The plaintiff
is now proceeding on his amended complaint which he filed on
July 9, 2015. (Doc. 9). Defendant Carey filed his
answer to plaintiff's amended complaint with affirmative
defenses on March 4, 2016. (Doc. 25).
then ensued, including the deposition of plaintiff.
October 13, 2016, defendant Carey filed a motion for summary
judgment. (Doc. 41). The motion was briefed by the
parties, a statement of material facts was filed as well as
16, 2017, Judge Carlson issued his report and recommended
that defendant Carey's motion for summary judgment be
granted since he found that Carey was entitled to qualified
immunity. (Doc. 69).
3, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to
file objections to Judge Carlson's reports which the
court granted and gave plaintiff until July 31, 2017 to file
his objections. (Doc. 70, Doc. 71).
August 1, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for a second
extension of time to object to Judge Carlson's report
and/or a motion to hold the case in abeyance “due to
[plaintiff's] mental incompetence to file a meaningful
appeal”, i.e., objections. (Doc. 72). In his
motion, plaintiff requests the court to place his case in
abeyance “until his mental [condition] stabilizes and
the arrival of his corrective lenses.” He also requests
that if his stay is denied, that he be given another
extension of time to file his objections.
to this motion is a July 26, 2017 “Affidavit” of
Jeffery Goodwin, seemingly a fellow inmate of plaintiff at
SCI-Houtzdale, which is only signed by
plaintiff. (Doc. 72-1). In the Affidavit, it
is alleged by Goodwin that plaintiff is “mentally
uncapable (sic) to reply to any or all of [the court's]
request” due to a fall plaintiff suffered in September
2015 in a non-handicap cell after the prison doctor removed
his required handicap cell status. The Affidavit also alleges
various instances of mistreatment plaintiff has suffered in
prison. It further re-asserts some of the alleged
constitutional violations plaintiff raised against the
defendants in his pleadings in this case. Additionally, the
Affidavit alleges that the prison mental health doctors are
not treating plaintiff's mental disorders, namely,
bipolar and PTSD disorders.
Affidavit, Goodwin also alleges that “[plaintiff] is in
a dangerous state of depression that's trigging (sic)
PTSD TRAUMA EVENTS OF THE WAR HEARING VOICES WITH
UNCONTROLABE (sic) MOOD SWINGS. MENTALLY UNCAPABLE (sic) OF
UNDERSTANDING ANY LEGAL DOCUMENTS.” Attached to the
Affidavit are exhibits, (Doc. 72-1), including
plaintiff's medical records from the Lebanon VA Medical
Center dated in 2008 showing his diagnoses of bipolar
disorder and post traumatic stress disorder
(“PTSD”). Also, included as exhibits are copies
of Inmate Request to Staff Member forms plaintiff submitted
in July 2017 in which he requested mental health treatment.
it is alleged in the Affidavit that the prison medical staff
deprived plaintiff of his required eye drops for his glaucoma
and that he has been mistreated by prison staff regarding his
medical need for dark glasses. It is also indicated that the
lenses of his glaucoma glasses are being properly tinted and
that plaintiff has not yet received them.
court directed defendant Carey to respond to plaintiff's
motion and he did so, through ...