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 June 16, 2017 report of Judge
Carlson, (Doc. 69), which recommends that defendant
Carey's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 41), be
granted based on qualified immunity in this civil rights
action raising a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. All
of the other defendants in this case, except for defendant
Carey, have previously been dismissed. After being granted
several motions for extensions of time to object to Judge
Carlson's report, plaintiff filed his objections on
October 31, 2017, with attached exhibits. (Doc. 79). The
court has reviewed Judge Carlson's report,
plaintiff's objections to it as well as defendant
Carey's response to the objections, and it will
ADOPT IN ITS ENTIRETY the report and
GRANT defendant Carey's motion for
summary judgment. Plaintiff's objections to Judge
Carlson's report will be OVERRULED.
by way of background, on June 16, 2015, the pro se
plaintiff, John A. Pino, an inmate at SCI-Houtzdale, PA,
filed 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. (Doc.
1). The plaintiff is now proceeding on his amended complaint
which he filed on July 9, 2015. (Doc. 9). Defendant Michael
Carey, Chief of Police of Saint Clair Borough, Pennsylvania,
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, Carey, now the sole remaining defendant,
filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 41). The motion
was briefed by the parties and a statement of material facts
was filed, as well as exhibits.
16, 2017, Judge Carlson issued his report and recommended
that Carey's motion for summary judgment be granted since
he found that Carey was entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc.
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 requested the court to place his case in abeyance
“until his mental [condition] stabilizes and the
arrival of his corrective lenses.” He also requested
that if his stay is denied, that he be given another
extension of time to file his objections.
September 5, 2017, the court issued a memorandum and order
denying plaintiff's request to hold in abeyance and stay
this case. The court, however, granted plaintiff's second
request for an extension of time until September 18, 2017
within which to file his objections to Judge Carlson's
Doc. 69 report. (Doc. 75, Doc. 76).
September 20, 2017, plaintiff filed a third motion for an
extension of time to object to Judge Carlson's report,
(Doc. 77), and the court granted it on September 29, 2017,
giving plaintiff until November 1, 2017 to file his
objections. (Doc. 78).
October 31, 2017, plaintiff filed his objections to Judge
Carlson's report, (Doc. 79), with attached exhibits,
including excerpts of notes of testimony from his criminal
trial, his unsworn Declaration, as well as a copy of a
medical record and documents regarding a grievance he filed
with the prison in June 2016. (Doc. 79-1). On November 7,
2017, Carey filed a response to plaintiff's objections.
November 8, 2017, the court issued an Order directing Carey
to file the video recordings of the events leading to
plaintiff's arrest on August 26, 2013, obtained from the
dashboard cameras of police vehicles. (Doc. 81). On November
16, 2017, the court received the video recordings from Carey.