Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
This is a prisoner civil-rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, regarding the conditions of confinement in Huntingdon State Correctional Institution (SCI-Huntingdon). The case was originally filed as a putative class action by three individual pro-se plaintiffs on behalf of a class of Huntingdon State Correctional Institution inmates. The court dismissed the class complaint and granted the remaining individual plaintiffs, Bobby Kenneth Williamson and Antonio Bundy, leave to amend their individual claims. They filed two separate amended complaints.
Plaintiff Williamson’s primary claims for relief relate to his alleged exposure to asbestos. The complaint alleges that sometime in 2021, shortly after the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) eased COVID-19 restrictions, defendant Rivello, the Huntingdon State Correctional Institution superintendent, issued a memorandum approving crews of Huntingdon State Correctional Institution employees and inmate-maintenance workers to begin renovations in the prison, which included removal of asbestos, lead paint, and mold. Plaintiff alleges defendants failed to display signs warning of the presence of asbestos during these renovations and failed to properly dispose of asbestos during the renovations. Plaintiff alleges they scraped and removed material containing asbestos without ventilation to remove asbestos from the air and they wore the clothes that were exposed to asbestos throughout their unit.
Plaintiff Bundy alleges the prison lacked sufficient ventilation, that there is black mold and asbestos in the prison, that officials retaliated against him for filing this case, that water in the prison is contaminated with bacteria and chemicals, that the prison’s infrastructure is collapsing, that officials did not respond quickly enough to a fire in 2020, and that the prison is infested with rats, mice, and other vermin
The Prison Litigation Reform Act authorizes a district court to review a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis or seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court is required to dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Plaintiffs bring their constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 creates a private cause of action to redress constitutional wrongs committed by state officials. To state a Section 1983 claim, plaintiffs must show a deprivation of a “right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States . . . by a person acting under color of state law.” Kneipp, 95 F.3d at 1204 (quoting Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141 (3d Cir. 1995)). A defendant cannot be liable for a violation of a plaintiff’s civil rights unless the defendant was personally involved in the violation. Jutrowski v. Twp. of Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280, 289 (3d Cir. 2018). The defendant’s personal involvement cannot be based solely on a theory of respondeat superior. Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). Rather, for a supervisor to be liable for the actions of a subordinate, there must be allegations of personal direction or actual knowledge and acquiescence.
After screening the amended complaints, the court dismissed Williamson’s complaint in part and dismissed Bundy’s complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The case will be allowed to proceed solely with respect to Williamson’s deliberate indifference claim in violation of the Eighth Amendment based on his exposure to asbestos, lead paint, and black mold against Rivello, Banks, Price, McMullen, Holms, and the facility maintenance manager and Williamson’s negligence claim against defendants Rivello and Holms.
Read the full decision here.