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.

Banks v. Kendra

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

December 7, 2017

MARVIN BANKS, Plaintiff,
SUSAN KENDRA, R.N., et al., Defendants



         Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state prisoner Marvin Banks brought this pro se action against various officials of the Delaware County Prisons' George W. Hill Correctional Facility, alleging violations of the Eighth and First Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Complaint names the following defendants: Chief Richard Leach, Warden David Bryne, three correctional officers (Gloria Jenkins, Christopher Page, and Finet Gilbert), three sergeants (Daniel Kelly, Geoffrey Baldwin and “Abt”), three nurses (Susan Kendra, Samantha Izzi, and “Peggy”), and the Community Education Centers, Inc. (ECF No. 5 at 2-3).

         Before this Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). (ECF No. 13 at 6, 22).

         Procedural Background

         Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 23, 2017. (ECF No. 1-1). On April 13, 2017, Defendants filed the Rule 12(b)(6), or 12(e), Motion that is the subject of this Memorandum. (ECF No. 13). A few days later, Plaintiff filed a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) without leave of court. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff has not filed any response with respect to the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion. This Court now resolves Defendants' unopposed Rule 12(b)(6) Motion.

         Standard of Review

         Before granting an unopposed Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court should satisfy itself that the complaint does not, in fact, state a claim. Ray v. Reed, 240 F.App'x 455, 456 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir. 1991)).

         In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, courts must “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). When, as here, the plaintiff is a pro se litigant, courts “have a special obligation to construe his complaint liberally.” Zilich v. Lucht, 981 F.2d 694 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing to Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). Nevertheless, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

         This standard, which applies to all civil cases, “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A]ll civil complaints must now set out sufficient factual matter to show that the claim is facially plausible.” Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210 (internal quotation marks omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). Courts may consider documents attached to the complaint in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion. See Huertas v. Galaxy Asset Mgmt., 641 F.3d 28, 32 (3d Cir. 2011).

         Factual Allegations

         According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was subjected to inhumane conditions while unduly confined in administrative segregation and disciplinary detention in retaliation for filing grievances at the George W. Hill Correctional Facility.[1] (ECF No. 5). He claims Defendants denied him access to grievance procedures and medical treatment, defamed his character, abused their authority, unnecessarily used force/authority, acted negligently, and caused him trauma, emotional distress, and physical injury. Id. at 15.

         A. Administrative Segregation

         The events giving rise to this suit began on November 24, 2016, when Plaintiff was cited purportedly for fighting another inmate and attempting to steal that inmate's possessions. (ECF No. 5 at 24). Plaintiff alleges that this disciplinary report was “bogus.” Id. Plaintiff further alleges that he was placed in administrative segregation, rather than the restricted housing unit, in retaliation for filing grievances. Id. at 15.

         In administrative segregation, Plaintiff's cell (10-C-104) was filled with bed bugs, causing him almost immediately to break out in hives. Id. at 7. When Plaintiff warned the entire cell block of the bug infestation, Officer Page told Plaintiff, “everything will happen on our time, ” “you should have kept your mouth shut, ” and “you should have never made a statement to the whole block about the bugs.” Id. at 19.

         Plaintiff filed a grievance, complaining about the bed bugs and the hives. (ECF No. 5 at 7). He also complained that it took eight hours for prison staff to fulfill his request for bed sheets. Id. at 7. In response to this grievance, Chief Leach advised Plaintiff to inform his unit manager about the conditions of the cell. Id. at 7, 17. Plaintiff reported the conditions of his cell and his bug bites to several defendants, including the unit manager, Sgt. Kelly. Id. at 20-21. Additionally, Plaintiff wrote a ...

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.