United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
D. MARIANI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Stephon Bennett ("Bennett"), an inmate who was
housed at all relevant times at the State Correctional
Institution at Smithfield, in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania
("SCI-Smithfield"), initiated this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Named as Defendants are
Lieutenant Keel, Lieutenant Rhone, Sergeant Wiser, Sergeant
Sheetz, Maintenance Technician Feagley, Nurse Lidwell, and
Nurse Holden. [Id.).
pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for
summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56. (Doc. 32). For the reasons set forth below, the Court
will deny Defendants' motion.
Summary Judgment Standard of Review
summary adjudication, the court may dispose of those claims
that do not present a "genuine dispute as to any
material fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). "As to
materiality, ... [o]nly disputes over facts that might affect
the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly
preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing
the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106
S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once such a showing has
been made, the non-moving party must offer specific facts
contradicting those averred by the movant to establish a
genuine issue of material fact. Lujan v. Nat'l
Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990). Therefore,
the non-moving party may not oppose summary judgment simply
on the basis of the pleadings, or on conclusory statements
that a factual issue exists. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
"A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely
disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular
parts of materials in the record ... or showing that the
materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a
genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce
admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)(1)(A)-(B). In evaluating whether summary judgment
should be granted, "[t]he court need consider only the
cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the
record." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3). "Inferences should
be drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
and where the non-moving party's evidence contradicts the
movant's, then the non-movant's must be taken as
true." Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am.,
Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3d Cir.1992), cert,
denied 507 U.S. 912 (1993).
"facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party only if there is a 'genuine' dispute
as to those facts." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.
372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1776, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). If a
party has carried its burden under the summary judgment rule,
its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Where the record
taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to
find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for
trial. The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute
between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly
supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is
that there be no genuine issue of material fact. When
opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is
blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable
jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version
of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary
Id. (internal quotations, citations, and alterations
Statement of Undisputed Facts
December 17, 2016, while housed at SCI-Smithfield, Bennett
was moved to cell KA1025. (Doc. 34, Statement of Material
Facts, ¶ 10; Doc. 40, Counterstatement of Material
Facts, ¶ 10).
work may not be performed in any area of an institution
without a valid work order. (Id. at ¶ 11). On
December 17, 2016, Work Order 2016-SMI-4633 was submitted for
cell KA1025. (Id. at ¶ 12). Work Order
2016-SMI-4633 describes the problem as "[t]he cold water
in 25 cell on the A2 Pod is not working and the water for the
hot is constantly running." (Id. at ¶ 13).
Defendants state that Bradley Corrie was assigned to perform
the plumbing maintenance for Work Order 2016-SMI-4633, and
that the work was completed on December 19, 2016.
(Id. at ¶¶ 14-15). Bennett coutners that
Defendant Feagley responded to this work order, not Bradley
Corrie, and that the cold water was not fixed on December 19,
2016. (Doc. 40, ¶¶ 14-15). He further avers that he
complained about no working water in his cell for weeks after
December 19, 2016. (Id. at ¶ 15).
December 29, 2016, Work Order 2016-SMl-4805 was submitted for
cell KA1025. (Doc. 34, ¶ 16; Doc. 40, ¶ 16). The
work order describes the problem as "[s]ink continuously
runs." (Id. at ¶ 17). Defendant Feagley
was assigned to perform the plumbing maintenance for Work
Order 2016-SMI-4805. (Id. at ¶ 18). The work
was completed on January 6, 2017. (Id. at ¶
19). Defendants maintain that the water in cell KA1025 was
running continuously. (Doc. 34, ¶ 20). Bennett counters
that the cold water in cell KA1025 was not running
continuously, and the hot water dripped from the faucet one
drop at a time. (Doc. 40, ¶ 20). The parties agree that
Bennett's toilet was ...