Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 3 Filed 04/04/13 Page 1 of 6

RECEIVED'

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

!8n!i)\ ,,- L·' lu, 1·_-__,'

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ClERK, U.S. DiSTRICT COURT

WEST. DIST. OF PENNSYLVAN!A

Full name, title, and business address

- r of
I

eMa.chr

~def¥e-nd.a~ntui~n

this action:
Cof'uQ...cJ·ta./\a..l

~<LI2.r

sc:r.-~.UJI\.e.... ll. 6 ?ro~ Or. ~-H-~ob.:...r\,r...

IN\..(~ ~u\n.c.\1\. " L~-r ~~~-''":..l 6+.('..--u.c· ~t::r. ·&..rUX\t l1~.f'ra.t""~: 'or. I..A.J~Iaul''\:/a... LS'3."Ze.

~{-. ba~.£!..V'\.- ~"~""'-~l o..£C~r ~C..J.. - CnnVAt.. \.'1.~ (>.-ot(<'C.~ OrL W.!!L~bur'lfl~"' ~~10 IV; r · M ~~""-Vi l ( L · (_ car-r£.,c_X \ O..l o..J:.Q <'J.,.r 5..<.."1.--C..t..l"'l.Li\-e.. l "1 ~ ?r'~~ Or<. l.Ud.\1!-~b..,'"'-f>A.l.S::nc.

bd.,..t "1"' 2

ly\,1• Me...

~~\.:~ <> - ~~~"'-

~l:!> t;.u~ I

ltJe.\-u..\..-- S.e ~c.r~CCcl're..c..~~ou.~ ~~1£)

\t~~rbuar.~A D~..cl{1)~r.,O.{.,~.,L~ >L~~ ~~\oU.if{"'f! 1?p.,.

[52,70 b:I.::.L

Usc additional sheets, if necessary Number each defendant

Plaintiff brings this action against the above named and identified defendants on the following cause of action:

I. Where are you now confined? _1.~':L.::_R~-Y~-~\A.,)____ ____

'J __ What sentence are you serving? ___

L ~o.r~------·-

ll..,_Ji<A\L What court ;mpo"d the sentence?

C.,.,~

II. Previous Lawsuits

A Describe any <~nd all lawsuits in which you are a plaintiff which deal with the same facts involved
in this action. (If there is more than one lawsuit, describe the additional lawsuits on another piece of paper, using the same outline.)

1. Parties to this previous lawsuit

Plaintiffs____ __ __________~ Q_

~ --- ---------
Defendants _______ . --·-- ~ ~---·---···-----------

-- . --··--·-·-·..-·-

tt\..Q;v\.(2_
-- -- --·--- --------·-·---·

·- -- ·-·---~·--- ·

2. Court (if federal court, name the district; if state court. name th e county) and docket number
·------- ----- ____V\:C--v't. Q....,..__________ - --·--------- - ---

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 3 Filed 04/04/13 Page 2 of 6

__________V\DAII. Q_ - - -
3. Name ofjudgc:: to whom case was assigned ___jll.D.V\..~-----
4. Disposition (For example: Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?) _ ___ ___., --·- --- hCvV\. ()_ - - -· .. ...- -

- - - - -- ---=-\1\lx--=:..:V\"--'-"'Q_ ·- - -- - - - ·- -- - - -
5. Approximate date of filing lawsuit 6. Approximate date of disposition ---·---~-lA Q_

B. Prior disciplinary proceedings which deal with the same facts involved in this action:

Where?.... __ ____ ____ £11pyt(L,_

When?________ 11"\o.v\.!L

Res ul t : __ _

-~V\.:....!.,!,CY=vt~e....."===----------

· - - ----"{/\........,_.ct_V\Q..._
------------1VJt....u..:0.<JA~/\_Q__~-- ·- - - -

Ill.

IV. Statement of Claim
(State here as briefly as possible the fac ts of your case. Do not give any legal arguments or cite any cases or statutes. If you intend to allege a number of related claims, number and set forth each claim in a separate paragraph. Use as much space as you need. Attach extra sheet if necessary.)
A Dateofevent: _ _~c.,~ ~-{~ ~[Q._ __ __ B. Place of event: ·-·-·· ~q-- ~J'.:...e::.=...;L;\;.A...L:=~----
c.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - -· - ..
Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 3 Filed 04/04/13 Page 3 of 6

,--------~·-·

-·

---

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 3 Filed 04/04/13 Page 4 of 6

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 3 Filed 04/04/13 Page 5 of 6

fit Qlakttff~v~ ~ <l u.LLD~.{:CUAJn.V\.b tn ~~£_l~~fd.wDt.L ~ O~'~a.... L CAJ?ll.Cf~~ll.::. l;ll..r ~+~ ~W'\clwt.~.t\..\- ~~.\-.~~ ko.II\..O...L -~-~~~~-~~-----~~~~-;;;--_~'i ~--~-~~;A. f\ 1a I i'::..L .

'"··=- \ <i.l'.f_, 4 iq~ [ 'tu\l ~ .(Mrtl:--- ~II. ¥:t-rcH ·1\

V. Did the incident of which you complai'ri\ccur in an institution orP\ace of custody in this District?

If so, where?
·w-;;·~~~~~~LL1Sa,:;,~~x~ D'~'"-

and a

follow• uesttons:

A Is therra prisoner grievance procedure in this institution? Yes(I/)No()

B. Did yoJ present the facts relating to your complaint in the state prisoner grievance procedure? YcsU No()

D. If your answer is NO, explain why n o t ; - - - -- - - -- -
\J E. If there/is no prison grievance procedure in the institution, did you complain to prison authorities? Yes No ()

State briefly exactly what you want the court to do for vou. Make no legal arguments. Cite no cases or statues.
~~V1~~~~ ~~.i~f ~~r-..l. c....·-W~\-.~p--~..~·-o----r---~ i ~-.-R.-e_--w·-w-----·-c-L--·-------~- - -
I DECLARE UNbER PENALTY 0 ERJURY THAT THE FOREGOlNG IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 3 Filed 04/04/13 Page 6 of 6

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/13 Page 1 of 1

2012

\\; \\.; \l!

---=>~inal Appeal Decision c:::::::~<---

--~~ecretary's Office of Inmate Grievances & Appeals C:::""""""-

- - 7 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections'---

1920 Technology Parkway

Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

This serves to acknowledge receipt of your appeal to the Secretary's Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals for the grievance noted below. In accordance with the provisions of DC-ADM 804, "Inmate Grievance System Policy", the following response is being provided based on a review of the entire record of this grievance. The review included your initial grievance, the Grievance Officer's response, your appeal to the Facility Manager, the Facility Manager's response. the issues you raised to final review, and (when applicable) any revised institutional responses required as a result of a subsequent remand action by this office. As necessary, input from appropriate Central Office Bureaus {e.g., Health Care Services. Chief Counsel, Office of Special Investigations and Intelligence, etc} may have been solicited in making a determination in response to your issue as well.

- A review of the record shows that you are filing an appeal claim in excessive force was used b an officer on 3-30-12,
You dispute the fact that staff ·d not address our re ue relief and the delay in response to your appeal.
~ tAn Investigation into the matter reveals that our aile atlons were substantiate , The investigation was reviewed by the
1ce o Specia Investigations and Intelligence. Administrative action was taken by the Administration at SCI Greene and it was determined tha(no relief was granted~ Delay In responding to your appeal was explained to you by the Grievance Coordinator in the request slip dated 7-18-12. Additional time was needed for proper review.

Title: Date:

9-11-201 2

DLV!TLW
cc: DC-15/Superintendent Folino Grievance Office

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 3-2 Filed 04/04/13 Page 1 of 1
.,-.:pennsylvania
~- DEPART/v1ENT OF CORRECTIONS
July 2, 2012 Wesley Chance, GP3374 SCI Greene Dear Mr. Chance : The Office of Special Investigations and Intelligence recently received your correspondence on June 6, 2012. Please be advised that your allegations against staff have been thoroughly investigated . .ltsased on the findings of that investigation your allegations were $Ubstantiateo-:'- If you have further questions pertaining to this matter, please refer them to the Internal Security Department at the State Correctional Institution Greene.
JCB/amw
O--f-f-i-c-e -o-f--S--p--e- u--a---l- l-n-v t>st~<_lilt1 0 115 anti lntell1qence I P.O. 13ox S' ; ·" I CillllfJ Hill. PA I /001 I / 1 7 72 8 .' 03 3 I .~ww.cor . stare . p ;J . u ·,

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 3-3 Filed 04/04/13 Page 1 of 1

~pennsylvania
~ DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

October 24, 2012

Wesley Chance, GP3374 SCI Greene
Dear Mr. Chance :
~ The Office of Special Investigations and Inteliigence recently received your correspondence on October 9, 2012.
Please be advised that a copy of your private criminal complaint form and a copy of the investigative report into your allegations of abuse were ~forwarded to Greene County District Attorney Marjorie Fox for revieyv.~
If you have further questions pertaining to this matter, please refer them to
the Greene County District Attorney's Office.

JCB/amw

Director

Department of Corrections 1Office of Special Investigations and Intelligence
1920 Technology Parkway I Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050 717.728.2033 I www.cor.state.pa.us

 
 Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESLEY CHANCE, Plaintiff,
v. KULIK, SUHAN, BOGDEN, MCCANVILLE, FOLINO, AND WETZEL,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 13-0350 ) ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Wesley Chance (“Chance”), by and through his counsel, K&L Gates LLP,

respectfully files the following First Amended Complaint and states as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This action arises under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United

States and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action seeks damages caused by the Defendants’

violation of Chance’s constitutional rights, specifically, Chance’s Eighth Amendment right to be

free from cruel and unusual punishment. Chance seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as

well as attorneys’ fees and costs, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

3. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)

because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted by Chance

occurred in the judicial district.

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 2 of 17
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff, Wesley Chance, at all times relevant hereto, was a prisoner within the penal system of the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution in Greene County, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Greene”), 125 Progress Dr. Waynesburg, PA 15370. 5. Presently, Chance is an inmate at the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute in Benner Township, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Benner”), 301 Institution Drive, Bellefonte, PA 16823. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kulik (“Officer Kulik”) is currently a correctional officer at a Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute and a citizen of Pennsylvania. At all relevant times hereto, Officer Kulik was employed as a corrections officer at SCI-Greene. 7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Suhan (“Officer Suhan”) is currently a correctional officer at a Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute and a citizen of Pennsylvania. At all relevant times hereto, Officer Suhan was employed as a corrections officer at SCI-Greene. 8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bogden (“Officer Bogden”) is currently a correctional officer at a Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute and a citizen of Pennsylvania. At all relevant times hereto, Officer Bogden was employed as a corrections officer at SCIGreene. 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant McCanville (“Officer McCanville”) is currently a correctional officer at a Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute and a citizen of Pennsylvania. At all relevant times hereto, Officer McCanville was employed as a corrections officer at SCI-Greene. 10. At all times relevant hereto, Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden and McCanville acted under color of state law as employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
- 2 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 3 of 17
11. Defendant Louis Folino (“Superintendent Folino”) is the superintendent of SCIGreene and a citizen of Pennsylvania with an address of SCI-Greene, 125 Progress Dr. Waynesburg, PA 15370.
12. At all times relevant hereto, Superintendent Folino acted under color of state law as an employee of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
FACTS A. The Malicious and Sadistic Beating of Chance by Officer Kulik for the Sole Purpose
of Causing Him Harm 13. On or about March 30, 2012, while at SCI-Greene, Chance was directed to relocate from his then-current cell to a new cell within SCI-Greene. 14. As part of the relocation, all of Chance’s personal property, including sentimental and invaluable items, were being transferred with him to the new cell. 15. Chance was handcuffed during his transportation to the new cell and was escorted by Officer Kulik. 16. Officer Kulik entered Chance’s new cell with Chance, even though, upon information and belief, prison regulations and policy prohibit a correctional officer from entering an inmate’s cell under such circumstances. 17. Upon arrival at the new cell, Officer Kulik, maliciously and without provocation, took all of Chance’s personal property, including sentimental and invaluable items, and flung the items throughout the new cell with the intention of damaging Chance’s property. 18. While still handcuffed, Chance orally questioned Officer Kulik’s damage of his property. Upon information and belief, Officer Kulik presumably took offense to being questioned, and without any provocation, began to physically attack Chance.
- 3 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 4 of 17
19. Officer Kulik willfully, maliciously, sadistically and with the sole intent to cause severe physical damage, punched Chance in face at least 3 times. Because Chance was still handcuffed, he was unable to shield or protect himself from this malicious and sadistic attack by Officer Kulik.
20. After punching the handcuffed Chance in the face while he was standing up, Officer Kulik then put Chance in a headlock and threw him to the ground.
21. With Chance on the ground still handcuffed and unable to protect himself, Officer Kulik again began viciously and repeatedly punching Chance in the face at least 6 additional times with the intention of inflicting serious bodily harm.
22. Upon information and belief, Officer Kulik struck Chance’s face with his hands with so much force and in such a repeated manner as to injure his own hands.
23. Chance was dazed and his face was bloody, swollen, and he immediately began suffering lost and distorted vision in his eye.
24. At no point in time did Chance use any force toward Officer Kulik, and Officer Kulik was not acting in any good-faith manner to restore order and discipline. Rather, Officer Kulik attacked Chance with the intent to inflict pain. B. Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville’s Failure to Intervene__________________
25. Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville were all present during and witnessed some or all of Defendant Kulik’s vicious attack on Chance. Specifically, these officers were at or around Chance’s cell when the attack occurred.
26. As correctional officers at or around the cell during the attack on Chance, Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville had a duty to intervene to prevent the use of excessive force by a fellow correctional officer.
- 4 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 5 of 17

27. Given their close proximity to the cell and the obvious abuse that Officer Kulik

was inflicting on Chance, Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville had a reasonable opportunity

to intervene and abate the use of excessive force by Officer Kulik on Chance.

28. Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville failed to intervene. Indeed, they took

no action to abate Officer Kulik’s attack and merely stood idly by as Officer Kulik sadistically

beat Chance with the purpose of inflicting damage.

C. Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville’s Conspiracy to Cover-up

Officer Kulik’s Use of Excessive Force

______

29. After he was finished pummeling the handcuffed and defenseless Chance, Officer

Kulik conspired with and instructed Officers Suhan, Bogden and McCanville to fabricate their

accounts of the incident to falsely indicate that Chance kicked Officer Kulik, provoking Officer

Kulik’s physical response.

30. Upon information and belief, Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden and McCanville

came to a mutual understanding and agreement to carry out a scheme to deprive Chance of his

federal constitutional and statutory rights.

31. In furtherance of this scheme, Officers Suhan, Bogden and McCanville, through

concerted action with Officer Kulik, materially misrepresented and/or omitted material facts

surrounding the incident and/or submitted falsified reports about the incident.

32. For example, on March 30, 2012, Officer Bogden submitted a misconduct report

regarding the above-described incident (the “Bogden Report”). A true and correct copy of which

is attached as Exhibit A.

33. Upon information and belief, the Bogden Report was intentionally falsified at the

request of Officer Kulik. In the section entitled “Staff Member’s Version,” it initially indicated

that Chance allegedly kicked Officer Kulik in the “leg (approx. knee level).” However, in an

- 5 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 6 of 17
effort to disguise Officer Kulik’s injuries to his hand sustained from the repeated punches to Chance’s face, the Bogden Report was altered to indicate that Chance kicked Officer Kulik’s “hand” by simply crossing out the word “leg” and replacing it with “hand.” This alteration is visible on the face of the Bogden Report.
34. Upon information and belief, Officers Suhan and McCanville either joined in the Bogden Report, completed their own reports similarly falsifying the account of the abovedescribed incident, or affirmatively failed to correct the false statements made by the other officers.
35. Upon information and belief, Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden and McCanville perpetrated this scheme to destroy, alter or conceal material evidence in an effort to prevent Chance from pursuing the remedies afforded to him under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the United States Constitution, and Pennsylvania’s prison system. D. Chance’s Permanent Injuries Sustained as a Result of Officer Kulik’s Attack,
and the Failure to Award Chance Relief for his Substantiated Claims 36. Immediately following the attack, Lieutenant Grego arrived and documented Chance’s injuries with a camera. 37. Upon information and belief, the attack on Chance by Officer Kulik was recorded on a surveillance video. 38. Chance filed a report of the incident with the Office of Special Investigations and Intelligence. 39. The Office of Special Investigations substantiated Chance’s allegations (the “Substantiated Report”), but did not award him relief. A copy of the Substantiated Report is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
- 6 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 7 of 17
40. Chance appealed to the Secretary’s Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals, asserting that Officer Kulik used excessive force and that the staff of SCI-Greene had not addressed his request for relief.
41. The Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals substantiated Chance’s allegation of excessive force and affirmed that no relief would be granted.
42. As a direct and proximate result of the actions alleged herein, Chance suffered, and continues to suffer, the following injuries:
(a) Bruises and lacerations to his face; (b) Temporary and permanent damage to his eye, including tears, phantom
flashes, and other retinal problems; (c) Frequent migraines; (d) Frequent vomiting and nausea; (e) Insomnia; (f) Severe emotional distress that has physically manifested into symptoms
akin to post-traumatic stress disorder; and (g) Other damages as may be permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to be proven
at trial. E. Superintendent Folino Failed to Adequately Supervise Officer Kulik, Exhibiting a
Deliberate Indifference of the Risk Posed by Officer Kulik to Chance ____________ 43. Superintendent Folino is the superintendent of SCI-Greene. He is the chief administrative official of SCI-Greene and supervises all of the operations and personnel of the prison. He is also responsible for the hiring, training, and discipline of corrections officers, as well as serving as the final arbiter of any inmate grievance.
- 7 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 8 of 17
44. In his position as superintendent, Superintendent Folino was personally involved in the goings-on at SCI-Greene, including events that led to the attack against Chance and events that followed. For instance, Superintendent Folino was personally involved in:
(a) The supervision of Officer Kulik; (b) Disciplining errant correctional officers, though, upon information and
belief, Officer Kulik was never adequately disciplined; (c) A lawsuit relating to the use of excessive force and falsification of reports,
naming Officer Kulik and Superintendent Folino as defendants; and (d) The grievance procedure whereby Chance was denied any recourse after
Officer Kulik’s attack. This is exemplified by Superintendent Folino’s Response to Inmate’s Response to Staff Member (“Folino Response,” a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit C), in which Superintendent Folino refuses to acknowledge that Officer Kulik caused Chance significant injury and continued to pose a risk to Chance after the March 30, 2012 attack. 45. Officer Kulik has a prior history of employing excessive force against inmates at SCI-Greene, which has been memorialized in grievances submitted to Superintendent Folino, as well as in federal lawsuits filed against Officer Kulik, of which Superintendent Folino was either aware or should have been aware. 46. By way of example, Officer Kulik was named as a defendant in Laurensau v. Pluck, No. 2:12-cv-00623-MPK (W.D. Pa. 2012), in which the inmate plaintiff alleged that Officer Kulik had falsified reports of misconduct in order to place the plaintiff on behavior
- 8 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 9 of 17
modified meals and cell restriction. The plaintiff also alleged that Officer Kulik had assaulted him, threatened him, and used abusive language towards him.
47. By way of further example, Officer Kulik and Superintendent Folino were named as defendants in Pew v. Folino, No. 2:11-cv-01003-DWA-LPL (M.D. Pa. 2011) involving, inter alia, allegations of excessive force. The inmate plaintiff alleged that Officer Kulik had restrained him, probed his buttocks, and choked him. He alleged that on one occasion, Officer Kulik, without provocation, threw his head into a wall, slammed him on the ground, and dragged him into a cell.
48. By way of further example, in 2011, Officer Kulik was charged with simple assault and harassment.
49. During the incident at issue in this case (as well as the three foregoing incidents) Superintendent Folino had actual or constructive knowledge of Officer Kulik’s conduct and was responsible for adequately supervising Officer Kulik. Notwithstanding Officer Kulik’s prior incidents of violence toward prisoners, of which Superintendent Folino was aware or should have been aware, Superintendent Folino took no meaningful action toward Officer Kulik, exhibiting a deliberate indifference to the fact that inaction would obviously result in Officer Kulik’s violation of prison inmates’ Constitutional and statutory rights.
50. Upon information and belief, Superintendent Folino exhibited deliberate indifference because: 1) he knew that Officer Kulik would be required to interact with inmates such as Chance; 2) interacting with inmates is a matter that Officer Kulik has a history of mishandling through the application of excessive levels of force; and 3) as a result, Officer Kulik’s prior errors in interacting with inmates and propensity for violence placed him in a
- 9 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 10 of 17
position whereby he engaged in excessive force against Chance, thereby violating Chance’s Constitutional and statutory rights.
51. As a result of Superintendent Folino’s deliberate indifference, Officer Kulik was placed in a position whereby he was able to and did, in fact, violate Chance’s Constitutional and statutory rights, as described above.
COUNT I - VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against Officer Kulik)
52. Chance hereby incorporates the preceding paragraphs, above, as if each were fully set forth herein.
53. As described herein, Officer Kulik maliciously and sadistically used excessive force for the purpose of causing harm to Chance in violation of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to Chance by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
54. Officer Kulik’s use of excessive force was done while acting under the color of state law.
55. Officer Kulik’s use of force against Chance was unnecessary and not justified under the circumstances.
56. Even if the use of force was deemed to be necessary, the amount of force used by Officer Kulik against Chance was not proportional to what was needed.
57. Officer Kulik made no efforts to temper the severity of a forceful response. 58. As a direct and proximate result of Officer Kulik’s excessive force as described herein, Chance suffered severe physical harm and emotional distress, including, but not limited to:
(a) Bruises and lacerations to his face;
- 10 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 11 of 17
(b) Temporary and permanent damage to his eye, including tears, phantom flashes, and other retinal problems;
(c) Frequent migraines; (d) Frequent vomiting and nausea; (e) Insomnia; (f) Severe emotional distress that has physically manifested into symptoms
akin to post-traumatic stress disorder; and (g) Other damages as may be permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to be proven
at trial. 59. Chance is entitled to compensation for such injuries and for the payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in an amount to be proven at trial.
COUNT II – VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against Officers Suhan, Bogden, McCanville)
60. Chance hereby incorporates the preceding paragraphs, above, as if each were fully set forth herein.
61. As described herein, Officer Kulik maliciously and sadistically used excessive force for the purpose of causing harm to Chance in violation of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to Chance by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
62. Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville were present during and witnessed some or all of Officer Kulik’s vicious attack on Chance.
- 11 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 12 of 17
63. As correctional officers within the immediate vicinity of the attack on Chance, Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville had a duty to intervene to prevent the use of excessive force by a fellow correctional office.
64. Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville had a reasonable opportunity to intervene and abate the use of excessive force by Officer Kulik on Chance.
65. Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville failed to intervene. 66. As a direct and proximate result of Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville’s failure to intervene as described herein, Chance suffered severe physical harm and emotional distress, including, but not limited to:
(a) Bruises and lacerations to his face; (b) Temporary and permanent damage to his eye, including tears, phantom
flashes, and other retinal problems; (c) Frequent migraines; (d) Frequent vomiting and nausea; (e) Insomnia; (f) Severe emotional distress that has physically manifested into symptoms
akin to post-traumatic stress disorder; and (g) Other damages as may be permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to be proven
at trial. 67. Chance is entitled to compensation for such injuries and for the payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in an amount to be proven at trial.
- 12 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 13 of 17
COUNT III - CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden, McCanville)
68. Chance hereby incorporates the preceding paragraphs, above, as if each were fully set forth herein.
69. Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville were present during and witnessed some or all of Officer Kulik’s vicious attack on Chance.
70. As set forth more fully above, Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden and McCanville conspired and agreed to perpetrate a fraudulent scheme by knowingly or recklessly making false and misleading statements of material fact and/or omitting material facts regarding the actual events surrounding Officer Kulik’s malicious and sadistic use of excessive force against Chance.
71. Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden and McCanville knew, or knowingly ignored, the fact that their concerted actions contributed to the violation of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to Chance by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
72. Chance has been damaged by Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden and McCanville’s wrongful and conspiratorial conduct. Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden and McCanville conspiratorial conduct, as alleged herein, was outrageous, willful and wanton, and was perpetrated with an evil motive and a reckless indifference to the rights of Chance. By reason of the foregoing, Chance is entitled to a judgment against Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden and McCanville, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at the trial of this action.
- 13 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 14 of 17
COUNT IV – VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against Superintendent Folino)
73. Chance hereby incorporates the preceding paragraphs, above, as if each were fully set forth herein.
74. Superintendent Folino failed to adequately supervise Officer Kulik, in violation of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to Chance by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
75. Superintendent Folino’s failure to adequately supervise Officer Kulik amounted to deliberate indifference to the fact that inaction would obviously result in Officer Kulik’s violation of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to Chance by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
76. Upon information and belief, Superintendent Folino exhibited deliberate indifference because: 1) he knew that Officer Kulik would be required to interact with inmates such as Chance; 2) interacting with inmates is a matter that Officer Kulik has a history of mishandling through the application of excessive levels of force; and 3) as a result, Officer Kulik’s errors in interacting with inmates have, and will continue to, frequently cause the deprivation of inmates’ Constitutional and civil rights. Indeed, Superintendent Folino’s failure to adequately supervise Officer Kulik directly and proximately caused the violation of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to Chance by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
77. As a direct and proximate result of Superintendent Folino’s wrongful conduct as described herein, Chance suffered severe physical harm and emotional distress, including, but not limited to:
- 14 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 15 of 17 (a) Bruises and lacerations to his face; (b) Temporary and permanent damage to his eye, including tears, phantom flashes, and other retinal problems; (c) Frequent migraines; (d) Frequent vomiting and nausea; (e) Insomnia; (f) Severe emotional distress that has physically manifested into symptoms akin to post-traumatic stress disorder; and (g) Other damages as may be permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to be proven at trial.
- 15 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 16 of 17

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Chance prays for the following relief:
(a) compensatory damages; (b) nominal and punitive damages; (c) to the extent monetary damages are awarded, prejudgment interest and
post-judgment interest on such damages; (d) attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses; and (e) any further relief that this Court deems necessary, proper, and just.

Dated: August 12, 2013

K&L Gates LLP
/s/ Denise N. Yasinow J. Nicholas Ranjan PA ID No. 93121 Bryan D. Rohm PA ID No. 209522 Denise N. Yasinow PA ID No. 313095 K&L Gates Center 210 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Tel.: (412) 355-6500
Attorneys for Plaintiff Wesley Chance

- 16 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 17 of 17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 12, 2013, a true and correct copy of the foregoing First Amended Complaint was filed and served electronically through the Court’s CM/ECF system on all counsel of record.
/s/ Denise N. Yasinow

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28-1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28-1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28-2 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT B

CCaassee22:1:133--ccvv--0000335500--MMPPKK DDooccuummeenntt238--22 FFilieledd0048/0/142/1/133 PPaaggee12ooff12

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28-3 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT C

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 28-3 Filed 08/12/13 Page 2 of 2

 
 Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 1 of 23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESLEY CHANCE, Plaintiff,
v. KULIK, SUHAN, BOGDEN, MCCANVILLE, FOLINO, AND WETZEL,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 13-0350 ) ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) )

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Wesley Chance (“Chance”), by and through his counsel, K&L Gates LLP,

respectfully files the following Second Amended Complaint and states as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This action arises under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United

States and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action seeks damages caused by the Defendants’

violation of Chance’s constitutional rights, specifically, Chance’s Eighth Amendment right to be

free from cruel and unusual punishment. Chance seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as

well as attorneys’ fees and costs, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

3. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)

because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted by Chance

occurred in the judicial district.

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 2 of 23
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff, Wesley Chance, at all times relevant hereto, was a prisoner within the penal system of the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution in Greene County, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Greene”), 125 Progress Dr. Waynesburg, PA 15370. 5. Presently, Chance is an inmate at the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute in Benner Township, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Benner”), 301 Institution Drive, Bellefonte, PA 16823. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kulik (“Officer Kulik”) is currently a correctional officer at a Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute and a citizen of Pennsylvania. At all relevant times hereto, Officer Kulik was employed as a corrections officer at SCI-Greene. 7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Suhan (“Officer Suhan”) is currently a correctional officer at a Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute and a citizen of Pennsylvania. At all relevant times hereto, Officer Suhan was employed as a corrections officer at SCI-Greene. 8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bogden (“Officer Bogden”) is currently a correctional officer at a Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute and a citizen of Pennsylvania. At all relevant times hereto, Officer Bogden was employed as a corrections officer at SCIGreene. 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant McCanville (“Officer McCanville”) is currently a correctional officer at a Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute and a citizen of Pennsylvania. At all relevant times hereto, Officer McCanville was employed as a corrections officer at SCI-Greene. 10. At all times relevant hereto, Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden and McCanville acted under color of state law as employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
- 2 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 3 of 23
11. Defendant Louis Folino (“Superintendent Folino”) is the superintendent of SCIGreene and a citizen of Pennsylvania with an address of SCI-Greene, 125 Progress Dr. Waynesburg, PA 15370.
12. At all times relevant hereto, Superintendent Folino acted under color of state law as an employee of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
FACTS A. The Malicious and Sadistic Beating of Chance by Officer Kulik with the Assistance
of Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville 13. On or about March 30, 2012, while at SCI-Greene, Chance was directed to relocate from his then-current cell to a new cell within SCI-Greene. 14. As part of the relocation, all of Chance’s personal property, including sentimental and invaluable items, were being transferred with him to the new cell. 15. Chance was handcuffed during his transportation to the new cell and was escorted by Officer Kulik. 16. Officer Kulik entered Chance’s new cell with Chance, even though, upon information and belief, prison regulations and policy prohibit a correctional officer from entering an inmate’s cell under such circumstances. 17. Upon arrival at the new cell, Officer Kulik, maliciously and without provocation, took all of Chance’s personal property, including sentimental and invaluable items, and flung the items throughout the new cell with the intention of damaging Chance’s property. 18. While still handcuffed, Chance orally questioned Officer Kulik’s damage of his property. Upon information and belief, Officer Kulik presumably took offense to being questioned, and without any provocation, began to physically attack Chance.
- 3 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 4 of 23
19. Officer Kulik willfully, maliciously, sadistically and with the sole intent to cause severe physical damage, punched Chance in the face at least 3 times. Because Chance was still handcuffed, he was unable to shield or protect himself from this malicious and sadistic attack by Officer Kulik.
20. After punching the handcuffed Chance in the face while he was standing up, Officer Kulik then put Chance in a headlock and threw him to the ground.
21. Upon information and belief, as Officer Kulik was employing excessive force against Chance, Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville entered the prison cell.
22. With Chance on the ground still handcuffed and unable to protect himself, Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville approached Chance and forcefully held him on the ground so that Officer Kulik could continue his attack.
23. Officer Kulik again began viciously and repeatedly punching Chance in the face at least 6 additional times with the intention of inflicting serious bodily harm.
24. Upon information and belief, Officer Kulik struck Chance’s face with his hands with so much force and in such a repeated manner as to injure his own hands.
25. Chance was dazed and his face was bloody, swollen, and he immediately began suffering lost and distorted vision in his eye.
26. At no point in time did Chance use any force toward Officer Kulik, and Officer Kulik was not acting in any good-faith manner to restore order and discipline. Rather, Officer Kulik attacked Chance with the intent to inflict pain. B. Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville’s Conspiracy to Use Excessive
Force and Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville’s Failure to Intervene________ 27. As alleged in paragraphs 21-22 above, Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville were all present during and witnessed Officer Kulik’s vicious attack on Chance.
- 4 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 5 of 23

28. As correctional officers in the cell during the attack on Chance, Officers Suhan,

Bogden, and McCanville had a duty to intervene to prevent the use of excessive force by a fellow

correctional officer.

29. Given their close proximity and the obvious abuse that Officer Kulik was

inflicting on Chance, Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville had a reasonable opportunity to

intervene and abate the use of excessive force by Officer Kulik on Chance.

30. Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville failed to intervene on behalf of Chance.

31. Rather, Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville came to a mutual understanding

and agreement with Officer Kulik to carry out a scheme to continue the use of excessive force and deprive Chance of his federal constitutional and statutory rights. See Baker v. Morgan, Civil

Action No. 05-3690, 2006 WL 1214808, at *6 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (finding that prisoner stated claim

against correctional officers for conspiracy to use excessive force).

32. In furtherance of this scheme, Officers Suhan, Bogden and McCanville, through

concerted action with Officer Kulik, forcefully restrained Chance on the ground so that Officer

Kulik could continue his brutal attack.

C. Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville’s Conspiracy to Cover-up the Use

of Excessive Force

________________________

33. After he was finished pummeling the handcuffed and defenseless Chance, Officer

Kulik conspired with and instructed Officers Suhan, Bogden and McCanville to fabricate their

accounts of the incident to falsely indicate that Chance kicked Officer Kulik, provoking Officer

Kulik’s physical response.

34. Officers Suhan, Bogden and McCanville, through mutual agreement and

concerted action with Officer Kulik, materially misrepresented and/or omitted material facts

surrounding the incident and/or submitted falsified reports about the incident.

- 5 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 6 of 23

35. For example, on March 30, 2012, Officer Bogden submitted a misconduct report

regarding the above-described incident (the “Bogden Report”). A true and correct copy of which

is attached as Exhibit A.

36. Upon information and belief, the Bogden Report was intentionally falsified at the

request of Officer Kulik. In the section entitled “Staff Member’s Version,” it initially indicated

that Chance allegedly kicked Officer Kulik in the “leg (approx. knee level).” However, in an

effort to disguise Officer Kulik’s injuries to his hand sustained from the repeated punches to

Chance’s face, the Bogden Report was altered to indicate that Chance kicked Officer Kulik’s

“hand” by simply crossing out the word “leg” and replacing it with “hand.” This alteration is

visible on the face of the Bogden Report.

37. Upon information and belief, Officers Suhan and McCanville either joined in the

Bogden Report, completed their own reports similarly falsifying the account of the above-

described incident, or affirmatively failed to correct the false statements made by the other

officers.

38. Upon information and belief, Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden and McCanville

perpetrated this scheme to destroy, alter or conceal material evidence in an effort to prevent

Chance from pursuing the remedies afforded to him under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the United States

Constitution, and Pennsylvania’s prison system.

D. Chance’s Permanent Injuries Sustained as a Result of the Officers’ Attack, and the

Failure to Award Chance Relief for his Substantiated Claims

______

39. Immediately following the attack, Lieutenant Grego arrived and documented

Chance’s injuries with a camera.

40. Upon information and belief, the attack on Chance by Officer Kulik was recorded

on a surveillance video.

- 6 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 7 of 23
41. Chance filed a report of the incident with the Office of Special Investigations and Intelligence.
42. The Office of Special Investigations substantiated Chance’s allegations (the “Substantiated Report”), but did not award him relief. A copy of the Substantiated Report is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
43. Chance appealed to the Secretary’s Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals, asserting that Officer Kulik used excessive force and that the staff of SCI-Greene had not addressed his request for relief.
44. The Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals substantiated Chance’s allegation of excessive force and affirmed that no relief would be granted.
45. As a direct and proximate result of the actions alleged herein, Chance suffered, and continues to suffer, the following injuries:
(a) Bruises and lacerations to his face; (b) Temporary and permanent damage to his eye, including tears, phantom
flashes, and other retinal problems; (c) Frequent migraines; (d) Frequent vomiting and nausea; (e) Insomnia; (f) Severe emotional distress that has physically manifested into symptoms
akin to post-traumatic stress disorder; and (g) Other damages as may be permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to be proven
at trial. E. Superintendent Folino Failed to Adequately Supervise Officer Kulik, Exhibiting a
Deliberate Indifference of the Risk Posed by Officer Kulik to Chance ____________
- 7 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 8 of 23
46. Superintendent Folino is the superintendent of SCI-Greene. He is the chief administrative official of SCI-Greene and supervises all of the operations and personnel of the prison. He is also responsible for the hiring, training, and discipline of corrections officers, as well as serving as the final arbiter of any inmate grievance.
47. In his position as superintendent, Superintendent Folino was personally involved in the goings-on at SCI-Greene, including events that led to the attack against Chance and events that followed. For instance, Superintendent Folino was personally involved in:
(a) The supervision of Officer Kulik; (b) Disciplining errant correctional officers, though, upon information and
belief, Officer Kulik was never adequately disciplined; (c) A lawsuit relating to the use of excessive force and falsification of reports,
naming Officer Kulik and Superintendent Folino as defendants; and (d) The grievance procedure whereby Chance was denied any recourse after
Officer Kulik’s attack. This is exemplified by Superintendent Folino’s Response to Inmate’s Response to Staff Member (“Folino Response,” a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit C), in which Superintendent Folino refuses to acknowledge that Officer Kulik caused Chance significant injury and continued to pose a risk to Chance after the March 30, 2012 attack. 48. Officer Kulik has a prior history of employing excessive force against inmates at SCI-Greene, which has been memorialized in grievances submitted to Superintendent Folino, as well as in federal lawsuits filed against Officer Kulik, of which Superintendent Folino was either aware or should have been aware.
- 8 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 9 of 23
49. By way of example, Officer Kulik was named as a defendant in Laurensau v. Pluck, No. 2:12-cv-00623-MPK (W.D. Pa. 2012), in which the inmate plaintiff alleged that Officer Kulik had falsified reports of misconduct in order to place the plaintiff on behavior modified meals and cell restriction. The plaintiff also alleged that Officer Kulik had assaulted him, threatened him, and used abusive language towards him.
50. By way of further example, Officer Kulik and Superintendent Folino were named as defendants in Pew v. Folino, No. 2:11-cv-01003-DWA-LPL (M.D. Pa. 2011) involving, inter alia, allegations of excessive force. The inmate plaintiff alleged that Officer Kulik had restrained him, probed his buttocks, and choked him. He alleged that on one occasion, Officer Kulik, without provocation, threw his head into a wall, slammed him on the ground, and dragged him into a cell.
51. By way of further example, in 2011, Officer Kulik was charged with simple assault and harassment.
52. During the incident at issue in this case (as well as the three foregoing incidents) Superintendent Folino had actual or constructive knowledge of Officer Kulik’s conduct and was responsible for adequately supervising Officer Kulik. Notwithstanding Officer Kulik’s prior incidents of violence toward prisoners, of which Superintendent Folino was aware or should have been aware, Superintendent Folino took no meaningful action toward Officer Kulik, exhibiting a deliberate indifference to the fact that inaction would obviously result in Officer Kulik’s violation of prison inmates’ Constitutional and statutory rights.
53. Upon information and belief, Superintendent Folino exhibited deliberate indifference because he knew: 1) that Officer Kulik would be required to interact with inmates such as Chance; 2) interacting with inmates is a matter that Officer Kulik has a history of
- 9 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 10 of 23
mishandling through the application of excessive levels of force; and 3) as a result, Officer Kulik’s prior errors in interacting with inmates and propensity for violence placed him in a position whereby he engaged in excessive force against Chance, thereby violating Chance’s Constitutional and statutory rights.
54. As a result of Superintendent Folino’s deliberate indifference, Officer Kulik was placed in a position whereby he was able to and did, in fact, violate Chance’s Constitutional and statutory rights, as described above.
COUNT I - VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against Officer Kulik)
55. Chance hereby incorporates the preceding paragraphs, above, as if each were fully set forth herein.
56. As described herein, Officer Kulik maliciously and sadistically used excessive force for the purpose of causing harm to Chance in violation of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to Chance by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
57. Officer Kulik’s use of excessive force was done while acting under the color of state law.
58. Officer Kulik’s use of force against Chance was unnecessary and not justified under the circumstances.
59. Even if the use of force was deemed to be necessary, the amount of force used by Officer Kulik against Chance was not proportional to what was needed.
60. Officer Kulik made no efforts to temper the severity of a forceful response.
- 10 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 11 of 23
61. As a direct and proximate result of Officer Kulik’s excessive force as described herein, Chance suffered severe physical harm and emotional distress, including, but not limited to:
(a) Bruises and lacerations to his face; (b) Temporary and permanent damage to his eye, including tears, phantom
flashes, and other retinal problems; (c) Frequent migraines; (d) Frequent vomiting and nausea; (e) Insomnia; (f) Severe emotional distress that has physically manifested into symptoms
akin to post-traumatic stress disorder; and (g) Other damages as may be permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to be proven
at trial. 62. Chance is entitled to compensation for such injuries and for the payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in an amount to be proven at trial.
COUNT II – VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville)
63. Chance hereby incorporates the preceding paragraphs, above, as if each were fully set forth herein.
64. As described herein, Officer Kulik maliciously and sadistically used excessive force for the purpose of causing harm to Chance in violation of the rights, privileges, and
- 11 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 12 of 23
immunities secured to Chance by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
65. Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville were present during and witnessed some or all of Officer Kulik’s vicious attack on Chance.
66. As correctional officers within the immediate vicinity of the attack on Chance, Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville had a duty to intervene to prevent the use of excessive force by a fellow correctional office.
67. Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville had a reasonable opportunity to intervene and abate the use of excessive force by Officer Kulik on Chance.
68. Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville failed to intervene in order to protect Chance.
69. As a direct and proximate result of Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville’s failure to intervene as described herein, Chance suffered severe physical harm and emotional distress, including, but not limited to:
(a) Bruises and lacerations to his face; (b) Temporary and permanent damage to his eye, including tears, phantom
flashes, and other retinal problems; (c) Frequent migraines; (d) Frequent vomiting and nausea; (e) Insomnia; (f) Severe emotional distress that has physically manifested into symptoms
akin to post-traumatic stress disorder; and
- 12 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 13 of 23
(g) Other damages as may be permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to be proven at trial.
70. Chance is entitled to compensation for such injuries and for the payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in an amount to be proven at trial.
COUNT III - CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville)
71. Chance hereby incorporates the preceding paragraphs, above, as if each were fully set forth herein.
72. Officers Suhan, Bogden, and McCanville were present during and witnessed some or all of Officer Kulik’s vicious attack on Chance.
73. As set forth more fully above, Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden and McCanville conspired and agreed to perpetrate a scheme of: 1) participating in a malicious and sadistic use of excessive force against Chance; and 2) then knowingly making false and misleading statements of material fact and/or omitting material facts regarding the actual events surrounding the attack.
74. Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden and McCanville knew, or knowingly ignored, the fact that their concerted actions contributed to the violation of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to Chance by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
75. Chance has been damaged by Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden and McCanville’s wrongful and conspiratorial conduct. Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden and McCanville’s conspiratorial conduct, as alleged herein, was outrageous, willful and wanton, and was perpetrated with an evil motive and a reckless indifference to the rights of Chance.
- 13 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 14 of 23
By reason of the foregoing, Chance is entitled to a judgment against Officers Kulik, Suhan, Bogden and McCanville, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at the trial of this action.
COUNT IV – VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against Superintendent Folino)
76. Chance hereby incorporates the preceding paragraphs, above, as if each were fully set forth herein.
77. Superintendent Folino failed to adequately supervise Officer Kulik, in violation of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to Chance by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
78. Superintendent Folino’s failure to adequately supervise Officer Kulik amounted to deliberate indifference to the fact that inaction would obviously result in Officer Kulik’s violation of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to Chance by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
79. Upon information and belief, Superintendent Folino exhibited deliberate indifference because he knew that: 1) Officer Kulik would be required to interact with inmates such as Chance; 2) interacting with inmates is a matter that Officer Kulik has a history of mishandling through the application of excessive levels of force; and 3) as a result, Officer Kulik’s errors in interacting with inmates have, and will continue to, frequently cause the deprivation of inmates’ Constitutional and civil rights. Indeed, Superintendent Folino’s failure to adequately supervise Officer Kulik directly and proximately caused the violation of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to Chance by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- 14 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 15 of 23 80. As a direct and proximate result of Superintendent Folino’s wrongful conduct as described herein, Chance suffered severe physical harm and emotional distress, including, but not limited to:
(a) Bruises and lacerations to his face; (b) Temporary and permanent damage to his eye, including tears, phantom
flashes, and other retinal problems; (c) Frequent migraines; (d) Frequent vomiting and nausea; (e) Insomnia; (f) Severe emotional distress that has physically manifested into symptoms
akin to post-traumatic stress disorder; and (g) Other damages as may be permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to be proven
at trial.
- 15 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 16 of 23

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Chance prays for the following relief:
(a) compensatory damages; (b) nominal and punitive damages; (c) to the extent monetary damages are awarded, prejudgment interest and
post-judgment interest on such damages; (d) attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses; and (e) any further relief that this Court deems necessary, proper, and just.

Dated: March 26, 2014

K&L Gates LLP
/s/ Denise N. Yasinow J. Nicholas Ranjan PA ID No. 93121 Bryan D. Rohm PA ID No. 209522 Denise N. Yasinow PA ID No. 313095 K&L Gates Center 210 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Tel.: (412) 355-6500
Attorneys for Plaintiff Wesley Chance

- 16 -

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 17 of 23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 26, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Second Amended Complaint was filed and served electronically through the Court’s CM/ECF system on all counsel of record.
/s/ Denise N. Yasinow

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 18 of 23

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 19 of 23

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 20 of 23

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 21 of 23

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 22 of 23

Case 2:13-cv-00350-MPK Document 45 Filed 03/26/14 Page 23 of 23

 
 Case: 2:13-cv-350 As of: 03/01/2016 11:07 PM EST 1 of 9
CLOSED,CONMAG,MR
U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:13−cv−00350−MPK

CHANCE v. KULIK et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly Cause: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/11/2013 Date Terminated: 10/20/2014 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 555 Prisoner Civil Rights (Prison Condition) Jurisdiction: Federal Question

WESLEY CHANCE

represented by Bryan D. Rohm K&L Gates LLP K&L Gates Center 210 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 412−355−8682 Fax: 412−355−6500 Email: bryan.rohm@klgates.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Nicholas Ranjan K&L Gates LLP K&L Gates Center 210 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222−2613 (412) 355−6500 Email: klgateseservice@klgates.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denise N. Yasinow 210 Sixth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 412−355−7425 Email: denise.yasinow@klgates.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant KULIK
Defendant SUHAN

represented by Jeffrey M. Paladina Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Office of Chief Coun 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 717−728−7763 Fax: 717−728−0312 Email: jpaladina@pa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Lynch Friedline Office of Attorney General Fifth Floor, Manor Complex 564 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 565−3520

Case: 2:13-cv-350 As of: 03/01/2016 11:07 PM EST 2 of 9

Email: mfriedline@attorneygeneral.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yana L. Warshafsky Office of the Attorney General 564 Forbes Avenue Manor Complex Pittsburgh, PA 15219 412−565−5706 Fax: 412−565−3019 Email: ywarshafsky@attorneygeneral.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant BOGDEN

represented by Mary Lynch Friedline (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yana L. Warshafsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant MCCANVILLE

represented by Mary Lynch Friedline (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yana L. Warshafsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant FOLINO

represented by Mary Lynch Friedline (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yana L. Warshafsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MR. WETZEL Secretary of Corrections TERMINATED: 04/02/2014

represented by Mary Lynch Friedline (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/11/2013

# Docket Text
1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by WESLEY CHANCE. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Consent to Proceed Before U.S. Magistrate Judge, # 6 Authorization, # 7 Envelope) (jsp) (Entered: 03/11/2013)

Case: 2:13-cv-350 As of: 03/01/2016 11:07 PM EST 3 of 9

04/04/2013 04/04/2013 04/04/2013 04/05/2013
04/29/2013 05/06/2013
05/06/2013
05/07/2013 06/06/2013
06/10/2013 06/14/2013 06/17/2013 06/17/2013 06/17/2013 06/21/2013 06/24/2013 07/03/2013

3 COMPLAINT against BOGDEN, FOLINO, KULIK, MCCANVILLE, SUHAN, WETZEL, filed by WESLEY CHANCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (jsp) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
4 Authorization permitting withdrawal of prison account funds to pay filing fee by WESLEY CHANCE. (jsp) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
5 CONSENT to Trial/Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by WESLEY CHANCE. (jsp) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
2 ORDER that request for in forma pauperis status 1 is granted and the Clerk is instructed to file the Complaint, Exhibits A,B,C, Authorization Form and Consent to Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge. The filing fee is $350.00 and Plaintiff having been granted leave to prosecute in forma pauperis, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Superintendent/warden of the Institution where this inmate is incarcerated is directed to remit from the prisoner's account, in monthly installments, the full $350.00 fee. Further ordered that the agency having custody of plaintiff shall forward to the Clerk of Court payments from prisoner's account to the Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in accordance with order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 4/4/2013. Copy of this order mailed to Plaintiff and Inmate Accounting at SCI Rockview on 4/5/2013. (dgg) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
6 Partial Payment of Filing Fee by WESLEY CHANCE. Fee $20.00, receipt number 24668020954. (gmp) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
7 ORDER that the Marshal is directed to mail a copy of the complaint, notice of lawsuit, request for waiver of service of summons, waiver, and this order to defendants as directed by plaintiff. Costs shall be advanced by the government.Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 5/6/2013. Copy of this order mailed to Plaintiff at address of record on 5/6/2013. (dgg) (Entered: 05/06/2013)
Service papers forwarded to Marshal's Office for service on 5/6/2013 (this excludes the Marshal's 285 forms as plaintiff did not provide those forms to the Court. The Marshal's Office will be sending Plaintiff letter to Plaintiff to complete those forms and return to Marshal's Office so that service may be effectuated) (dgg) (Entered: 05/06/2013)
8 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by WESLEY CHANCE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support, # 2 Letter to the Court, # 3 Envelope) (jsp) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
ORDER granting 8 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. J. Nicholas Ranjan, Esquire appointed for WESLEY CHANCE for purposes of trial only. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 6/6/2013. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (dgg) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Bryan D. Rohm on behalf of WESLEY CHANCE. (Rohm, Bryan) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Denise N. Yasinow on behalf of WESLEY CHANCE. (Yasinow, Denise) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed MCCANVILLE waiver sent on 5/22/2013, answer due 7/22/2013. (jsp) (Entered: 06/18/2013)
12 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed FOLINO waiver sent on 5/22/2013, answer due 7/22/2013. (jsp) (Entered: 06/18/2013)
13 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed WETZEL waiver sent on 5/22/2013, answer due 7/22/2013. (jsp) (Entered: 06/18/2013)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by Mary Lynch Friedline on behalf of BOGDEN, FOLINO, MCCANVILLE, SUHAN, WETZEL. (Friedline, Mary) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
15 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by KULIK. KULIK waiver sent on 5/22/2013, answer due 7/22/2013. (Paladina, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey M. Paladina on behalf of KULIK. (Paladina, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/03/2013)

Case: 2:13-cv-350 As of: 03/01/2016 11:07 PM EST 4 of 9

07/03/2013 07/05/2013
07/12/2013 07/12/2013 07/12/2013 07/19/2013 07/19/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/25/2013
07/25/2013 07/25/2013 07/26/2013
07/26/2013 08/12/2013
08/12/2013 08/13/2013

w/ 16 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by KULIK. (jsp) (Entered: 07/05/2013)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 16 Notice of Appearance. ERROR: Document should have been filed as two separate documents. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that documents of that nature are to be filed as separate documents. Clerk of Court docketed Jury Demand. This message is for informational purposes only. (jsp) (Entered: 07/05/2013)
17 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed BOGDEN waiver sent on 5/22/2013, answer due 7/22/2013. (jsp) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
18 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed SUHAN waiver sent on 5/22/2013, answer due 7/22/2013. (jsp) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
19 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed KULIK waiver sent 5/22/2013, answer due 7/22/2013. (jsp) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
20 Partial MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by BOGDEN, FOLINO, MCCANVILLE, SUHAN, WETZEL. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Friedline, Mary) (Entered: 07/19/2013)
21 BRIEF in Support re 20 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by BOGDEN, FOLINO, MCCANVILLE, SUHAN, WETZEL. (Friedline, Mary) (Entered: 07/19/2013)
22 ANSWER to 3 Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by KULIK. (Paladina, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
23 Partial Payment of Filing Fee by WESLEY CHANCE. Fee $20.00, receipt number 24668022123. (gmp) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
ORDER that Plaintiff's Response re 20 Partial Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim due by 8/19/2013. Since this case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge, each party must execute and file within twenty−one (21) days of its appearance, a form consenting to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge or electing to have the case randomly assigned to a District Judge. The applicable form is available on the Court's website at www.pawd.uscourts.gov in the forms section. If a party elects to have the case assigned to a District Judge, the Magistrate Judge will continue to manage the case as provided for in Local Rule 72G. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 7/25/2013. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (dgg) (Entered: 07/25/2013)
24 CONSENT to Trial/Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by BOGDEN, FOLINO, MCCANVILLE, SUHAN, WETZEL. (Friedline, Mary) (Entered: 07/25/2013)
25 CONSENT to Trial/Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by WESLEY CHANCE. (Yasinow, Denise) (Entered: 07/25/2013)
26 NOTICE of Change of Address by WESLEY CHANCE. FILER advised that the change of address has been made on above captioned matter only. If you wish to have address changed on other matters before this court, it is your responsibility to file such a notice at each case number. This NEF has been mailed to WESLEY CHANCE. (mjl) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
27 CONSENT to Trial/Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by KULIK. (Paladina, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
28 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against KULIK, SUHAN, BOGDEN, MCCANVILLE, FOLINO, WETZEL filed by WESLEY CHANCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (Yasinow, Denise) Modified on 8/13/2013. (jsp) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
30 Partial Payment of Filing Fee by WESLEY CHANCE. Fee $8.00, receipt number 24668022436. (mjl) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
ORDER − Plaintiff having filed a First Amended Complaint, Defendants Bogden, Folino, McCanville, Suhan and Wetzels' Partial Motion to Dismiss 20 is dismissed as moot. All Defendants are to file Responses to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by 8/27/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 8/13/2013. Text−only

Case: 2:13-cv-350 As of: 03/01/2016 11:07 PM EST 5 of 9

08/13/2013 08/13/2013 08/14/2013 08/20/2013 08/20/2013 08/21/2013
08/23/2013 08/23/2013 08/26/2013
09/06/2013 09/17/2013 11/01/2013 11/05/2013 12/05/2013 01/08/2014 02/06/2014 03/05/2014 03/12/2014

entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (dgg) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
Update Answer Deadline: Answers to First Amended Complaint due by 8/27/2013. (dgg) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
29 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant John Wetzel without prejudice by WESLEY CHANCE (Yasinow, Denise) Modified on 8/14/2013. (jsp) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
31 ORDER approving 29 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice as to Defendant John Wetzel, filed by WESLEY CHANCE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 8/14/2013. (dgg) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
32 Partial MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim re 28 Amended Complaint by KULIK. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Paladina, Jeffrey) Modified on 8/21/2013 to edit docket text. (ksa) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
33 BRIEF in Support re 32 Motion to Dismiss filed by KULIK. (Paladina, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
ORDER that Plaintiff's Response re 32 Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Kulik is due by 9/20/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 8/21/2013. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (dgg) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
34 Partial MOTION to Dismiss re 28 Amended Complaint by BOGDEN, FOLINO, MCCANVILLE, SUHAN. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Friedline, Mary) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
35 BRIEF in Support re 34 Partial Motion to Dismiss filed by BOGDEN, FOLINO, MCCANVILLE, SUHAN. (Friedline, Mary) Modified on 8/26/2013. (jsp) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
ORDER that Plaintiff's Response re 34 Partial Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Bogden, Folino, McCanville and Suhan is due by 9/26/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 8/26/2013. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (dgg) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
36 Partial Payment of Filing Fee by WESLEY CHANCE. Fee $14.00, receipt number 24668022758. (gmp) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
37 OMNIBUS BRIEF in Opposition re 32 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, 34 Motion to Dismiss filed by WESLEY CHANCE. (Yasinow, Denise) Modified on 9/18/2013. (jsp) (Entered: 09/17/2013)
38 SUPPLEMENT by WESLEY CHANCE to 37 Brief in Opposition to Motion. (Yasinow, Denise) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
39 Partial Payment of Filing Fee by WESLEY CHANCE. Fee $8.00, receipt number 24668023559. (mjl) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
40 Partial Payment of Filing Fee by WESLEY CHANCE. Fee $8.00, receipt number 24668024040. (mjl) (Entered: 12/06/2013)
41 Partial Payment of Filing Fee by WESLEY CHANCE. Fee $9.00, receipt number 24668024438. (mjl) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
42 Partial Payment of Filing Fee by WESLEY CHANCE. Fee $18.00, receipt number 24668024860. (gmp) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
43 Partial Payment of Filing Fee by WESLEY CHANCE. Fee $6.00, receipt number 24668025235. (mjl) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
44 Plaintiff having indicated in his Supplement to Omnibus Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Partial Motions to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 38 , that he may wish to amend the First Amended Complaint to add a claim of conspiracy to commit excessive force, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff has until 3/26/2014,

Case: 2:13-cv-350 As of: 03/01/2016 11:07 PM EST 6 of 9

03/12/2014 03/26/2014 04/01/2014 04/02/2014 04/03/2014
04/07/2014
05/06/2014 05/30/2014
05/30/2014 06/06/2014 06/25/2014

to file a Second Amended Complaint so as to include the claim of conspiracy to commit excessive force if he wishes to pursue such a claim. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Kulik's Partial Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 32 , and the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint submitted on behalf of Defendants Bogden, Folino, McCanville and Suhan, ECF No. 34 , which are currently pending, are denied without prejudice to refiling should Plaintiff decline to file a Second Amended Complaint by 3/26/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 3/12/2014. (dgg) Modified on 3/13/2014. (jsp) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
Second Amended Complaint due by 3/26/2014. (dgg) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
45 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against KULIK, SUHAN, BOGDEN, MCCANVILLE, FOLINO, WETZEL, filed by WESLEY CHANCE. (Yasinow, Denise) Modified on 3/27/2014. (jsp) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
46 Errata re 45 Second Amended Complaint by WESLEY CHANCE. Reason for Correction: Incorrect caption. (Yasinow, Denise) Modified on 4/2/2014. (jsp) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
ORDER − Defendants' Response re: Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 45 due by 4/9/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 4/2/2014. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (dgg) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
ORDER scheduling telephone status conference for Monday, April 7, 2014 at 2:15 p.m. The purpose of the call is to discuss the interest of the parties in mediation at this stage of the case. Plaintiff's counsel is to get defense counsel on the call and then call chambers. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 4/3/14. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (Kelly, Maureen) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
47 Minute Entry for Telephone Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 4/7/2014. Court Reporter: None. OUTCOME: 1. Reviewed current posture of the case. 2. All parties are interested in participating in a mediation with the Court. Mediation to take place on Thursday, 5/29/2014 at 9:00 a.m. 3. Defendants to produce identified documents to counsel for Plaintiff by 5/9/2014. Parties have agreed to enter into an attorneys eyes only protective order. Plaintiff to submit demand to Defendants by 5/19/2014. 4. Defense counsel to arrange logistics at the institution for Plaintiff to participate. To provide update as to logistics by email to all counsel and the Court. 5. The requirement that Defendants file an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint is hereby stayed until after the mediation, pending further order of this Court. (dgg) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
48 Partial Payment of Filing Fee by WESLEY CHANCE. Fee $8.00, receipt number 24668026094. (gv) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
49 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly: Settlement Conference held on 5/30/2014. OUTCOME: 1. Plaintiff Wesley Chance participated by telephone; 2. Extensive discussions conducted. Case was not resolved at this point. Final offer made and Plaintiff to respond within 10 days; 3. Counsel for Commonwealth Defendants to look into treatment in 3 categories; 4. Identified informal discovery to be produced by Defendants to Plaintiff by 6/6/14 subject to confidentiality agreement; 5. Status conference scheduled for 7/1/14 at 9:00 a.m. Harrisburg counsel may participate by phone; 6. Defendants to file Answers to Second Amended Complaint by 6/27/14; 7. Trial tentatively set for 11/3/14. (Court Reporter: none) (bb) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
Calendar Entry: Jury Trial set for 11/3/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9C before Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly; Status Conference set for 7/1/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9C before Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly; Update Answer Deadline: Answer due from All Defendants 6/27/2014. (bb) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
50 Partial Payment of Filing Fee by WESLEY CHANCE. Fee $16.00, receipt number 24668026578. (mjl) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
51 ANSWER to 45 Second Amended Complaint by BOGDEN, FOLINO, MCCANVILLE, SUHAN. (Friedline, Mary) Modified on 6/26/2014. (jsp) (Entered:

Case: 2:13-cv-350 As of: 03/01/2016 11:07 PM EST 7 of 9

06/26/2014 07/01/2014
07/01/2014 07/01/2014
07/01/2014 07/18/2014 07/28/2014 07/29/2014
08/08/2014 08/27/2014 08/28/2014

06/25/2014)
52 ANSWER to 45 Second Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by KULIK. (Paladina, Jeffrey) Modified on 6/27/2014. (jsp) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
53 Minute Entry for Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 7/1/2014. (Court Reporter: None). OUTCOME: 1. Reviewed outstanding claims. 2. Discussed documents requested by Plaintiff to date. Defense counsel will produce today the misconduct printout and the mental health records post−incident. 3. Addressed planned depositions and discovery. Discovery will close on 9/30/2014. Counsel to enter into protective order as to personnel, investigative and medical records. 4. Defense anticipates filing partial motion for summary judgment. A separate summary judgment scheduling order will issue. 5. Post−Discovery status conference set for 9/30/2014 at 9:00 a.m. 6. Due to required discovery and expected summary judgment motion, trial date of 11/3/2014 is cancelled. 7. Following ruling on motion for summary judgment, an expert schedule will be issued. (dgg) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
Post−Discovery Status Conference set for 9/30/2014 at 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly. (dgg) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
54 SCHEDULING ORDER − 1) Any Motions for Summary Judgment due by 10/15/2014. 2) Any Response in Opposition to a Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/14/2014. 3) All Motions for Summary Judgment and Responses thereto shall comply with Local Rule 56. In addition, all references to evidence made in the parties' respective briefs shall be supported by citations directly to the record evidence included in the Appendix. 4) Any Replies to Responses due by 11/21/2014 and shall not exceed five (5) pages. Sur−replies are only permitted by leave of Court. 5) If a Brief or Materials submitted in Support of or in Opposition to a Motion for Summary Judgment are in excess of twenty (20) pages, the filing party is directed to provide the Court with a courtesy hard−copy of the filed copy, which includes the ECF notation at the top of each page. 6) Given the unique circumstances of this case, the parties will prepare a Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, to the extent possible. It must be filed by 10/15/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 7/1/2014. (dgg) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
ORDER − The Post−Discovery Status Conference originally set for 9/30/2014 at 9:00 a.m. is rescheduled to 9/30/2014 at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 7/1/2014. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (dgg) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
55 Partial Payment of Filing Fee by WESLEY CHANCE. Fee $12.00, receipt number 24668027194. (gmp) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
56 MOTION to Take Deposition from Plaintiff Wesley Chance, Prisoner Witnesses Erik Cathell and Robert Kline by BOGDEN, FOLINO, MCCANVILLE, SUHAN. (Attachment: # 1 Proposed Order) (Friedline, Mary) Modified on 7/29/2014. (jsp) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
ORDER granting 56 Defendants' Motion for Leave to Take Depositions of Prisoner Witnesses/Plaintiff. The parties are granted leave to depose the following prisoner witnesses and plaintiff, who are in the custody of the PA Department of Corrections: Wesley Chance, GP−3374 (plaintiff), Erik Cathell, DY−6920 (witness), Robert Kline, EJ−6584 (witness). Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 7/29/2014. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (dgg) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
57 Partial Payment of Filing Fee by WESLEY CHANCE. Fee $8.00, receipt number 24668027520. (gmp) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
ORDER − Status Conference set for 9/3/2014 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 8/27/2014. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (dgg) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
ORDER − The Status Conference scheduled for 9/3/2014 at 10:30 a.m. will be conducted via telephone. Plaintiff's counsel is to get defense counsel on the phone and

Case: 2:13-cv-350 As of: 03/01/2016 11:07 PM EST 8 of 9

09/03/2014
09/10/2014 09/29/2014 09/30/2014
09/30/2014
10/08/2014 10/15/2014 10/17/2014 10/20/2014

then call chambers at the time of the conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 8/28/2014. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (dgg) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
58 Minute Entry for Telephone Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 9/3/2014. Court Reporter: None. OUTCOME: 1. Update provided as to status of discovery. Parties anticipate completing discovery by 9/30/2014. 2. Counsel for Plaintiff inquired as to 3 medical treatment items that DOC had offered to look into. Information provided by defense counsel as to same. Defense counsel will send a letter to counsel for Plaintiff identifying these efforts. The Court noted that no settlement was reached at the settlement conference, and, as such, these efforts to look into issues were undertaken as a courtesy to the Court. 3. Discussed possible resolution of this matter. The parties are encouraged to further explore constructive resolution of this matter. The Court requested that Plaintiff's counsel address possible settlement with him. 4. All counsel are to have discussed settlement with their clients and are to be prepared to discuss during post−discovery status conference on 9/30/2014. (dgg) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
59 Partial Payment of Filing Fee by WESLEY CHANCE. Fee $5.00, receipt number 24668027923. (sms) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
60 NOTICE of Appearance by Yana L. Warshafsky on behalf of BOGDEN, FOLINO, MCCANVILLE, SUHAN. (Warshafsky, Yana) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
61 Minute Entry for Post−Discovery Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 9/30/2014. Court Reporter: None. OUTCOME: 1. Discovery completed. No open issues. 2. Court raised the possibility of settlement with all counsel. Settlement Conference scheduled for Tuesday, 10/21/2014 at 1:30 p.m. in Judge Kelly's courtroom. All counsel to appear. Defense counsel to make arrangements for Mr. Chance to participate via video conference. Plaintiff to submit demand by 10/9/2014 to defense counsel. Defense counsel to submit response by 10/16/2014. 3. A separate order will be issued slightly modifying the summary judgment briefing schedule. 4. The parties were encouraged to work towards a reasonable resolution of this matter. (dgg) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
62 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Motions for Summary Judgment and Briefs due by 11/14/2014. Any Responses to a Motion for Summary Judgment and accompanying Brief in Support due by 12/12/2014. All Motions for Summary Judgment and Responses shall comply with Local Rule 56. In addition, all references to evidence made in the parties' respective briefs shall be supported by citations directly to the record evidence included in the Appendix. Any Replies to Responses are due by 12/19/2014 and shall not exceed five (5) pages. Sur−replies are only permitted by leave of Court. If a Brief or Materials submitted in Support of or in Opposition to a Motion for Summary Judgment are in excess of twenty (20) pages, the filing party is directed to provide the Court with a courtesy hard−copy of the filed copy, which includes the ECF notation at the top of each page. Given the unique circumstances of this case, the parties will prepare a Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, to the extent possible. It must be filed by 11/14/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 9/30/2014. (dgg) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
63 JOINT MOTION to Extend Settlement Demand Deadline by WESLEY CHANCE. (Attachment: # 1 Proposed Order) (Yasinow, Denise) Modified on 10/9/2014. (jsp) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
64 ORDER granting 63 Joint Motion to Extend Settlement Demand Deadline. Plaintiff's Settlement Demand deadline is extended to 10/15/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 10/15/2014. (dgg) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
65 JOINT REPORT of Settlement by WESLEY CHANCE (Ranjan, J.) Modified on 10/20/2014. (jsp) (Entered: 10/17/2014)
ORDER − The Court having been advised that this action has settled, the settlement conference scheduled for 10/21/2014 is CANCELLED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 10/20/2014. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (dgg) (Entered: 10/20/2014)

Case: 2:13-cv-350 As of: 03/01/2016 11:07 PM EST 9 of 9

10/20/2014
11/24/2014
12/01/2014 12/10/2014 01/13/2015

66 ORDER − It appearing that this case has been resolved, the Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case closed inasmuch as no further action by the Court is contemplated at this time. Nothing contained in this Order shall be considered a dismissal or disposition of this matter and, should further proceedings in it become necessary or desirable, either party may initiate it in the same manner as if this order has not been entered. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 10/20/2014. (dgg) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
67 MOTION for Expenses Reimbursement by WESLEY CHANCE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit A−−costs for copying medical records, # 3 Exhibit B−−reporter's fee/deposition transcripts for Kulik and Bogden, # 4 Exhibit C−−reporter's fee/deposition transcripts for McConville and Folino, # 5 Exhibit D−−reporter's fee/deposition transcripts for Suhan, Leggett, Armstrong, and Haywood, # 6 Exhibit E−−reporter's fee/deposition transcript for Cathell, # 7 Exhibit F−−reporter's fee/deposition transcript for Chance) (Yasinow, Denise) Modified on 11/25/2014. (jsp) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
68 ORDER granting 67 Motion for Expenses Reimbursement, filed by Court Appointed Counsel for Plaintiff. The Law Firm of K&L Gates LLP shall be reimbursed in the amount of $2,813.21 from the Attorney Admission Fund. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 12/1/2014. (dgg) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
69 Partial Payment of Filing Fee by WESLEY CHANCE. Fee $12.00, receipt number 24668029375. (mjl) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
70 Final Payment of Filing Fee by WESLEY CHANCE. Fee $ 178.00, receipt number 24668029880 (sms) (Entered: 01/13/2015)