United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO, J.
se Plaintiff Brandon Deeck, a prisoner who was formerly
confined at the George W. Hill Correctional Facility
(“GWH”) and is now incarcerated at Chester County
Prison, has brought a civil rights Complaint based on events
that occurred at GWH. He has also filed a Motion to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis. Named as Defendants are
Correctional Officer Serody, Doctor Phillips, Correctional
Officer Ebowa, and Warden Burns. Because it appears that
Deeck is unable to afford to pay the filing fee, the Court
will grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
For the following reasons, the Complaint will be dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
handwritten Complaint is difficult to read. He appears to
assert that, from February 23, 2018 to April 22, 2019 while
he was in custody at GWH, he had to sleep on the floor in a
“boat” - a type of temporary bed - with two other
inmates in a cell designed to hold only two inmates. He
claims that Defendant Serody told him if he did not use the
boat he would “suffer extreme consequences.” (ECF
No. 3 at 2.) He claims that he fell while getting out
of his boat and injured his back. He was taken to an
“outside hospital on the compound” where he was
treated by Dr. Phillips. (Id.) However, Deeck also
contradictorily asserts that Defendant Phillips refused to
treat him but ordered him to be transported to Jefferson
Hospital for treatment of his injury.
was returned to his cellblock after getting treatment and was
assigned to the same boat, Deeck complained to Serody who
threatened him with “imminent danger and serious
physical injury.” (Id. at 3.) He alleges that
Defendant Ebowa threatened him as well. Serody and Ebowa then
placed him in a cell naked and began making sexually explicit
comments. (Id.) Deeck makes no factual assertions
about Defendant Burns.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court will grant Deeck leave to proceed in forma
pauperis because it appears that he is incapable of
paying the fees to commence this civil action. Accordingly, 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) requires the Court to dismiss the
Complaint if, among other things, it is frivolous or fails to
state a claim. Whether a complaint fails to state a claim
under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same
standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher v.
McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which
requires the Court to determine whether the complaint
contains “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). Conclusory allegations do not
suffice. Id. As Deeck is proceeding pro se,
the Court construes his allegations liberally. Higgs v.
Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a
complaint to contain “a short a plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint
that does not comply with Rule 8 if “the complaint is
so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible
that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.”
Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995)
(quotations omitted). This Court has noted that Rule 8
“requires that pleadings provide enough information to
put a defendant on sufficient notice to prepare their defense
and also ensure that the Court is sufficiently informed to
determine the issue.” Fabian v. St. Mary's Med.
Ctr., No. Civ. A. 16-4741, 2017 WL 3494219, at *3 (E.D.
Pa. Aug. 11, 2017) (quotations omitted).
1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code provides in part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or
the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
42 U.S.C. § 1983. “To state a claim under §
1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States,
and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a
person acting under color of state law.” West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Claims Involving Conditions of Confinement
Eighth Amendment governs claims brought by convicted inmates
challenging their conditions of confinement, while the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governs claims
brought by pretrial detainees. Hubbard v. Taylor,
399 F.3d 150, 166 (3d Cir. 2005). As Deeck's status
during his ...