United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, Judge
Marques Gregory McClorin, proceeding pro se, brings this
action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the
conditions at the George W. Hill Correctional Facility, where
he was recently incarcerated. For the following reasons, the
Court shall grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and dismiss his Complaint without prejudice.
McClorin's claims arise out of his allegation that the
George W. Hill Correctional Facility was overcrowded during
his incarceration there from November of 2017 through March
of 2018. Specifically, he alleges that he was held in the
booking unit for four (4) days, where he had to sleep
“on the hard, dirty, cold floor with 15 other
strangers.” Compl. at 3. Mr. McClorin subsequently
spent seven (7) days in the intake/classification unit.
Id. He alleges that while there, he was housed with
two other individuals and “slept in a boat on the floor
next to a (leaking) toilet.” Id.
McClorin was “finally” sent to his unit,
“where [he] stayed in a boat until 12-4-17.”
Id. Every time he tried to move to another cell,
“the inmates [would] always get their friends or
threaten [him] not to move cells.” Id. Mr.
McClorin claims that correctional officers “had [their]
favorites and put who they wanted in 2 man cells.”
Id. He contends that the living conditions were
“terrible” because he had to sleep “in a
cold boat on the floor next to a smelly, runny toilet.”
Id. He was moved to a two-man cell after December 4,
2017. Id. Mr. McClorin asserts that “[his]
back was always hurting.” Id. at 4.
it appears that he is not capable of prepaying the fees to
commence this action, leave to proceed in forma
pauperis will be granted. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) applies, which requires dismissal of the
complaint if it fails to state a claim.
survive dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted).
“The plausibility standard is not akin to a
‘probability requirement, ' but it asks for more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id.; see also Phillips v.
Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234-35 (3d Cir. 2008)
(“[T]here must be some showing sufficient to justify
moving the case beyond the pleadings to the next stage of
litigation.”). “In this review, courts 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.” Eid v. Thompson,
740 F.3d 118, 122 (3d Cir. 2014) (quotations omitted).
Because Mr. McClorin is proceeding pro se, we
construe his allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y
Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
McClorin has named the George W. Hill Correctional Facility
as the sole defendant in this action. His claims against the
facility must be dismissed because “‘[t]he George
W. Hill Correctional Facility is not a legal entity
susceptible to suit.'” Cephas v. George W. Hill
Corr. Facility, Civ. A. No. 09-6014, 2010 WL 2854149, at
*1 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2010) (quoting Ignudo v.
McPhearson, Civ. A. No. 03-5459, 2004 WL 1320896, at *2
(E.D. Pa. June 10, 2004)); see also Regan v. Upper Darby
Twp., C. A. No. 06-1686, 2009 WL 650384, at *4 (E.D. Pa.
Mar. 11, 2009) (“[A] prison or correctional facility is
not a ‘person' that is subject to suit under
federal civil rights laws.”). Therefore, Mr. McClorin
cannot maintain his § 1983 claim against the George W.
Hill Correctional Facility.
McClorin's claims also fail substantively. The Eighth
Amendment governs claims brought by convicted inmates
challenging their conditions of confinement. The Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governs claims brought by
pretrial detainees. Hubbard v. Taylor (Hubbard I),
399 F.3d 150, 166 (3d Cir. 2005). Because Mr. McClorin's
status during his incarceration is not clear from the
Complaint, the Court shall analyze the Complaint under both
establish an Eighth Amendment violation based on the
conditions of confinement, a prisoner must establish the
prison officials' acts or omissions denied him “the
minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.”
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). He must
also establish that the defendants acted with deliberate
indifference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835
establish a basis for a Fourteenth Amendment violation, a
prisoner must establish that the conditions of confinement
amount to punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,
538 (1979). That inquiry generally turns on whether the
conditions have a purpose other than punishment and whether
the conditions are excessive in relation to that purpose.
See Id. at 538-39; Hubbard I, 399 F.3d at
multiple inmates in a cell does not alone establish a
constitutional violation. See Hubbard v. Taylor (Hubbard
II), 538 F.3d 229, 236 & n.6 (3d Cir. 2008)
(pretrial detainees do not have a right “to be free
from triple-celling or from sleeping on a mattress placed on
the floor.”); North v. White, 152 Fed.Appx.
111, 113 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“Double or
triple-bunking of cells, alone, is not per se
unconstitutional.”). Instead, in assessing whether a
prisoner's conditions of confinement violate the Eighth
or Fourteenth Amendment, a court considers the totality of