United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
D. Mariani United States District Judge
Hector Luis Castillo ("Plaintiff), an inmate formerly
housed at the Monroe County Correctional Facility, in
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, ("MCCF"), commenced this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). The
remaining Defendants are Patti Manfre, and Vincent
pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc.
17). Despite being directed to file a brief in opposition to
Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 20, ¶ 2),
Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion and the time for
responding has now passed. In the absence of any timely response
by Plaintiff, the motion is deemed ripe for resolution. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion
Standard of Review
complaint must be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), if
it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167
L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The plaintiff must aver "factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129
S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
a complaint 'does not need detailed factual allegations,
... a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do.'" DelRio-Mocci v. Connolly
Prop. Inc., 672 F.3d 241, 245 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In other words,
"[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level." Covington v.
Int'l Ass'n of Approved Basketball Officials,
710 F.3d 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2013) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted). A court "take[s] as true all
the factual allegations in the Complaint and the reasonable
inferences that can be drawn from those facts, but...
disregard[s] legal conclusions and threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements." Ethypharm S.A. France v. Abbott
Laboratories, 707 F.3d 223, 231, n. 14 (3d Cir. 2013)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
and Iqbal require [a district court] to take the
following three steps to determine the sufficiency of a
complaint: First, the court must take note of the elements a
plaintiff must plead to state a claim. Second, the court
should identify allegations that, because they are no more
than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of
truth. Finally, where there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement
for relief. Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist, 706
F.3d 209, 212 (3d Cir. 2013).
the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more
than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
alleged - but it has not show[n] - that the pleader is
entitled to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). This
"plausibility" determination will be a
"context-specific task that requires the reviewing court
to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."
even "if a complaint is subject to Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal, a district court must permit a curative amendment
unless such an amendment would be inequitable or
futile." Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515
F.3d 224, 245 (3d Cir. 2008).
[E]ven when plaintiff does not seek leave to amend his
complaint after a defendant moves to dismiss it, unless the
district court finds that amendment would be inequitable or
futile, the court must inform the plaintiff that he or she
has leave to amend the complaint within a set period of time.
Allegations of the Complaint
alleges that on December 6, 2017, he was "assaulted,
discriminated by Monroe County Correctional Facility."
(Doc. 1, p. 6). He claims that an unidentified female
correctional officer video recorded him without his consent.
(Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Manfre
"did not like the way [he] looked at her" after he
handed her a request slip, and she ordered Defendant Cardenas
to lock down Plaintiff in his cell for twenty-four hours.
(Id.). Plaintiff asserts that he is schizophrenic
and was traumatized by being locked down in his cell.
(Id.). Plaintiff alleges that some of his property
was stolen during a cell transfer, and that Defendant
Cardenas threw his belongings on the floor of the cell.
(Id.). Plaintiff further asserts that he requires a
bottom bunk, however the bottom bunk in his cell was
occupied. (Id. at pp. 6-7). Defendant Cardenas
allegedly provided him with a mattress on the floor.
alleges that other unidentified officers denied his
visitation requests while he was in the Restrictive Housing
Unit ("RHU"), and other unnamed officers served him
non-diabetic food even though he is diabetic. (Id.
at p. 7). Plaintiff asserts that he was not provided a cup
for drinking, and was forced to drink from a soup bowl.
(Id.). Plaintiff avers ...