United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
E. Schwab, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
Isaacson alleges that he sustained an injury from a stone
during the operation of a stump grinder while at the St.
Joseph Institute for Addiction (“St. Joseph”).
According to Isaacson, after his injury, the staff at St.
Joseph threatened him and denied him his rights, causing him
emotional trauma, for which he seeks $250, 000. Isaacson
asserts his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We granted
Isaacson's application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. But after screening Isaacson's amended
complaint, we concluded that it fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Although we granted Isaacson
leave to file a second amended complaint, he failed to do so.
Because the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, we recommend that it be
Background and Procedural History.
December 11, 2017, while incarcerated at the Wayne County
Jail located in New York, Isaacson began this action by
filing a complaint in the United States District Court for
the Western District of New York. Isaacson also filed a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and he later
filed an amended complaint. On December 20, 2018, Judge
Siragusa of the Western District of New York transferred this
case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a) because “all the events
underlying the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint are
alleged to have occurred at [St. Joseph]-located in Center
County, Pennsylvania and thus within the geographical
confines of the Middle District of Pennsylvania.”
Doc. 6 at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 112(a)).
the amended complaint liberally, Isaacson attempts to assert
two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the first claim
dealing with the alleged injury Isaacson sustained from a
stump grinder, and the second claim dealing with staff at St.
Joseph allegedly prohibiting phone calls or treatment and
threatening him. It is difficult to separate these claims as
Isaacson pleads both broadly and blends both the claims and
the defendants. First, Isaacson names St. Joseph and Clinical
Director Ms. Torrey as the defendants based upon “free
speech, due process, equal protection, failure to protect,
right to counsel, failure to train and supervise, [and]
supervisor liability.” Doc. 4 at 6. Isaacson alleges
that Torrey and other staff at St. Joseph forbade him from
making phone calls to his lawyer or family, prevented him
from seeking medical treatment, and threatened him to
“keep his mouth shut” about his injury.
Id. at 6-7.
Isaacson names Dave, the Stump Grinder Operator; John Doe, a
heavy-set man; St. Joseph; and Torrey as the defendants based
upon “freedom of speech, due process, equal protection,
failure to protect, right to counsel, supervisor liability,
failure to properly train and supervise, [and] professional
negligence.” Id. at 7. Isaacson claims that
because Dave and John Doe operated their stump grinder
without any warning signs or safety devices, he was injured
when a stone “shot out” and struck him in the
face, leaving a gash. Id. at 9-10.
Screening of In Forma Pauperis Complaints-Standard
review the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2) which provides:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof,
that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at
any time if the court determines that-
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal-
(i) is frivolous or ...