IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


SHARIF WILLIAMSON, Civil No. 3:15-cv-1797 


Plaintiff (Judge Mariani) 

v. 

SUPERINTENDENT GARMAN, et al., 

Defendants 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Plaintiff Sharif Williamson ("Plaintiff'), an inmate currently confined at the Rockview 

State Correctional Institution, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Rockview"), commenced this 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Named as Defendants are the following 

employees of SCI-Rockview: Mark Garman, Superintendent; Eric Tice, Deputy 

Superintendent for Facilities Management; Howard Hoover, Security Lieutenant; Nathan 

Lehman, Lieutenant; Heather Haldeman, Major; Jeff Rackovan, Corrections 

Superintendent's Assistant and Facility Grievance Coordinator; and Corrections Officers 

Clark, Leidhecker, Myers, Phillips, Tubbs, Weaver, and Intallura. (Docs. 1, 19). Before the 

Court is a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by 

Defendants Garman, Tice, Hoover, Lehman, Haldeman, and Rackovan, and a motion to 

dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by the Corrections 

Officers. (Docs. 15,24). Plaintiff failed to respond to the motions and the time for 

responding has now passed. In the absence of any timely response by Plaintiff, the 

Case 3:15-cv-01797-RDM-CA Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 15
motions are deemed ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant 


each of the pending motions. 

I. Standard of Review 

Acomplaint must be dismissed under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), if it does not allege 

"enough facts to state aclaim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell At!. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). The plaintiff must 

aver "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 

1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). 

"Though acomplaint 'does not need detailed factual allegations, ... aformulaic 

recitation of the elements of acause of action will not do.'" DelRio-Mocci v. Connolly Prop. 

Inc., 672 F.3d 241,245 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In other words, 

"[nactual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." 

Covington v. Int'l Ass'n of Approved Basketball Officials, 710 F.3d 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2013) 

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Acourt "takers] as true all the factual 

allegations in the Complaint and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn 'from those 

facts, but ... disregard[s] legal conclusions and threadbare recitals of the elements of a 

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." Ethypharm S.A. France v. 

Abbott Laboratories, 707 F.3d 223, 231, n.14 (3d Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotation 

2 


Case 3:15-cv-01797-RDM-CA Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 15
marks omitted). 


Twombly and Iqbal require [a district court] to take the following three steps to 

determine the sufficiency of acomplaint: First, the court must take note of the 

elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim. Second, the court should 

identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not 

entitled to the assumption of truth. Finally, where there are well-pleaded factual 

allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether 

they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief. 

Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 212 (3d Cir. 2013). 

"[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not show[n] - that the 

pleader is entitled to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (internal citations and quotation marks 

omitted). This "plausibility" determination will be a "context-speci'flc task that requires the 

reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. 

However, even "if a complaint is subject to Rule 12{b){6) dismissal, adistrict court 

must permit acurative amendment unless such an amendment would be inequitable or 

futile." Phillips V. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 245 (3d Cir. 2008). 

[E]ven when plaintiff does not seek leave to amend his complaint after a 

defendant moves to dismiss it, unless the district court finds that amendment 

would be inequitable or futile, the court must inform the plaintiff that he or she 

has leave to amend the complaint within aset period of time. 

Id. 

3 


Case 3:15-cv-01797-RDM-CA Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 3 of 15
II. Allegations of the Complaint 

Plaintiff alleges that, on June 18, 2015, he was transferred to the restricted housing 

unit ("RHU") at SCI-Rockview. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Upon arrival to the RHU, Plaintiff alleges that 

seven corrections officers held him down, cut off his clothes, and performed an "illegal strip 

search." (ld.). During the strip search, Plaintiff states that he was placed on his stomach, 

and someone "start[ed] grabbing [his] buttock ... and spread [his] buttcheeks apart." (ld.). 

Plaintiff claims that the officers used unnecessary force, and reaped sexual pleasure from 

the strip search. (Id. at pp. 5-6). Plaintiff further contends that Defendant Lehman 

supervised the strip search, never ordered him to comply with astrip search, and let the 

officers touch him in a sexual manner. (Id. at 3-4). 

Plaintiff alleges that he wrote to the Superintendent and the Deputy "challenging the 

strip search policy and the person that supervis[ed] it." (Id. at p. 4). Plaintiff claims that he 

received no responses to his letters. (ld.). 

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Tice failed to provide him with information 

about his claim and failed to respond to Plaintiffs inquiries. (Id.). Similarly, Plaintiff 

contends that Defendant Hoover failed to provide updates on the investigation. (ld.). 

On June 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed agrievance regarding the strip search. (Id. at p. 19). 

In response, Defendant Rackovan informed Plaintiff that an investigation was being 

conducted pursuant to the Department's Policy, DC-ADM 008, Prison Rape Elimination Act 

4 


Case 3:15-cv-01797-RDM-CA Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 4 of 15
("PREA"). (Id. at p. 20). 

On June 25, 2015, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Defedant Garman regarding the strip 

search. (Id. at pp. 21-22). In response, Plaintiff was advised that his concerns were being 

investigated per prison policy. (Id. at p. 22). 

On July 8, 2015 Plaintiff submitted an "inmate's request to staff member" to 

Defendant Hoover inquiring about his allegations. (Id. at p. 24). Defendant Hoover 

informed Plaintiff that his allegations were being investigated pursuant to prison policy. 

(Id.). 

Plaintiff thereafter filed an unsuccessful grievance requesting the names of the 

officers involved in the strip search. {Id. at pp. 25-26}. 

On August 11, 2015, Plaintiff wrote aletter to Defendant Garman inquiring about the 

names of the officers involved in the strip search. {ld. at p. 23}. Plaintiff was advised that 

his question was previously addressed, and he was again advised that his allegations were 

being investigated. (Id.). 

III. Discussion 

Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code offers private citizens acause of 

action for violations of federal law by state officials. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute 

provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

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 

5 


Case 3:15-cv-01797-RDM-CA Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 5 of 15
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 

redress.... 

/d.; see also Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 284-85 (2002); Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 

F.3d 1199, 1204 (3d Cir. 1996). To state aclaim 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). 

A. Personal Involvement 

Defendants Haldeman, Garman, Tice, Hoover, Rackovan, and Lehman argue that 

Plaintiff fails to state a claim against them because they lack personal involvement in the 

alleged wrongs, and because Plaintiffs allegations against them are based solely on the 

doctrine of respondeat superior. (Doc. 17, at 4-8). 

Local government units and supervisors typically are not liable under Section 1983 

solely on a theory of respondeat superior. See City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle,471 U.S. 

808,824 n.8 (1985); Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 {holding that 

municipal liability attaches only "when execution of agovernment's policy or custom, 

whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to 

represent official policy, inmcts the injury" complained oD. It is well-established that: 

6 


Case 3:15-cv-01797-RDM-CA Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 6 of 15
Adefendant in acivil rights action must have personal involvement in the 

alleged wrongs.... [P]ersonal involvement can be shown through allegations 

of personal direction or of actual knowledge and acquiescence. Allegations of 

participation or actual knowledge and acquiescence, however, must be made 

with appropriate particularity. 

Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). 

1. Defendant Haldeman 

With respect to Defendant Haldeman, a review of the complaint con'firms that other 

than being listed as a Defendant there are no specific assertions that she had any personal 

involvement in the purported violations of Plaintiffs rights. See (Doc. 1). To state aviable 

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a constitutional right by 

a person acting under color of state law. See West, 487 U.S. at 48. "A defendant's conduct 

must have a close causal connection to plaintiffs injury in order for § 1983 liability to attach." 

Charles v. Sabol, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49680, *6 (M.D. Pa. 2009) (Rambo, J.) (citing 

Marlinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 285 (1980)). "[E]ach named defendant must be 

shown, via the complaint's allegations, to have been personally involved in the events or 

occurrences which underlie aclaim." Cross v. Losinger, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22336, *4 

(M.D. Pa. 2007) (Nealon, J.) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); Hampton v. 

Holmesburg Prison Officials, 546 F.2d 1077 (3d Cir. 1976)). There is no well-pleaded 

allegation that Defendant Haldeman was involved in the alleged unconstitutional conduct. 

Therefore, the complaint against this Defendant will be dismissed. 

7 


Case 3:15-cv-01797-RDM-CA Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 7 of 15
2. Defendants Garman, Tice, Hoover, and Rackovan 

Plaintiff seeks to impose liability on Defendants Garman, Tice, Hoover, and 

Rackovan based upon their failure to respond to inquiries or grievances. Astate prisoner's 

allegation that prison officials and administrators responded inappropriately, or failed to 

respond to a prisoner's complaint or an official grievance, does not establish that the 

officials and administrators were involved in the underlying allegedly unconstitutional 

conduct. See Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207-08 (concluding that after-the-fact review of a 

grievance is insufficient to demonstrate the actual knowledge necessary to establish 

personal involvement); Brooks v. Beard, 167 F. App'x 923,925 (3d Gir. 2006); see also 

Croom v. Wagner, No. 06-1431, 2006 WL 2619794, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 11,2006) (holding 

that neither the filing of agrievance nor an appeal of agrievance is sufficient to impose 

knowledge of any wrongdoing); Ramos v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, No. 06-1444, 

2006 WL 2129148, at *2 (M.D. Pa. July 27,2006) (holding that the review and denial of the 

grievances and subsequent administrative appeal does not establish personal involvement). 

Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Rackovan, the Facility Grievance Coordinator, 

solely relate to his participation in the grievance procedure. However, prison officials cannot 

be held liable based solely on their failure to take corrective action when grievances or 

investigations were referred to them. See Pressley v. Beard, 266 F. App'x 216 (3d Cir. 

2008). 

8 


Case 3:15-cv-01797-RDM-CA Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 8 of 15
Regarding Defendant Garman, Plaintiff alleges that he failed to respond to Plaintiffs 


letter requesting the names of the officers involved in the strip search. However, the letter 

attached to Plaintiffs complaint reveals that Defendant Garman did in fact respond to 

Plaintiffs letter on August 11, 2015 (Doc. 1, p. 23), although apparently not to Plaintiffs 

satisfaction. 

The only allegations against Defendants Tice and Hoover are that they denied 

Plaintiffs request for information regarding his legal claim, and failed to provide updates on 

the pending investigation, respectively. Such allegations are insufficient to satisfy the 

requisite personal involvement standard under Rode. 

Consequently, Defendants Garman, Tice, Hoover, and Rackovan are entitled to 

dismissal from this action based on their lack of personal involvement in the alleged denial 

of Plaintiffs rights. 

3. Defendant Lehman 

The complaint alleges that Lieutenant Lehman was "supervis[ing] the strip search," 

"never order[ed] [Plainti'f~ to comply with astrip search," and IIlet the officers touch [Plaintiff] 

in asexual way." (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). The claims asserted against Defendant Lieutenant 

Lehman appear to be premised upon his supervisory position. Based upon an application 

of the above standards, such allegations are insufficient to satisfy the personal involvement 

requirement standard of Rode. However, drawing all reasonable inferences, even if the 

9 


Case 3:15-cv-01797-RDM-CA Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 9 of 15
Court were to construe Plaintiffs allegations as claiming that Defendant Lehman was 


personally involved in the strip search, for the reasons discussed in Section IV(S}, infra, 

Plaintiffs claims that his constitutional rights were violated during, or as a result of, the strip 

search must be dismissed. 

Accordingly, Defendant Lehman is entitled to dismissal from this action. 

B. Strip Search 

A prisoner's challenge to astrip search may be cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

through the Fourth or Eighth Amendments. 1 See Seymour/Jones v. Spratts, 1990 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 193, *4 (E.D. Pa. 1990), citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 558-60 (1979). To raise 

a Fourth Amendment claim, the prisoner must allege that the strip search was 

unreasonable. See Payton v. Vaughn, 798 F. Supp. 258, 261-62 (E.D. Pa. 1992). Where a 

prisoner alleges that the strip search was conducted in aphysically abusive manner, the 

Eighth Amendment applies. See Jordan v. Cicchi, 428 F. App'x 195, 199-200 (3d Cir. 2011) 

1 Although Plaintiff frames his argument as an Eighth Amendment violation, the Court will 

dispose of the claims pursuant to both the Eighth and Fourth Amendments. Acourt will apply the 

applicable law irrespective of whether the unrepresented litigant mentioned it by name. See Higgins v. 

Beyer, 293 F.3d 683,688 (3d Cir. 2002); Allen v. Warden of Dauphin County Jail, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

74752, *5 n.6 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (Conner, J.) (reasoning, that "the court is obligated to construe [a pro se 

inmate's] complaint liberally and to 'apply the relevant law, regardless of whether the pro se litigant has 

identified it by namelll), citing Smith v. Johnson, 202 F. App'x 547,549 (3d Cir. 2006). When apro se 

plaintiff frames his claim in terms of one particular constitutional Amendment, the court will not limit his 

allegations to a theory of recovery under that Amendment. See Welch v. Nunn, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

86045, *19 n.8 (D.N.J. 2006) (addressing the plaintiffs retaliation claim under the correct Amendment, 

despite the fact that he couched his retaliation argument as an Eighth Amendment violation); see also 

Brown v. Montgomery County, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10335 (ED. Pa. 2005). 

10 


Case 3:15-cv-01797-RDM-CA Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 10 of 15
(explaining that an excessive force claim arising from astrip search may proceed under 


either the Fourth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment, but the latter is "the primary source 

of protection after an individual's conviction"); Robinson v. Ricci, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

44011, *50 n.6 (D.N.J. 2012) (stating that, in addition to a possible Fourth Amendment 

violation, the "Eighth Amendment may be implicated where the strip search or visual body 

cavity search was conducted in a brutish and unreasonable manner"). 

Plaintiff alleges that corrections officers Clark, Leidhecker, Myers, Phillips, Tubbs, 

Weaver, and Intallura cut off his clothes, placed him on his stomach, and one officer 

"start[ed] grabbing [his] buttock ... and spread [his] butt cheeks apart." (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6; 

Doc. 19). 

The Court finds no constitutional violation in the strip search that was conducted 

upon Plaintiffs transfer to the RHU. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that prison 

officials may conduct visual body cavity searches whenever an inmate enters and exits his 

cell in the RHU, if performed in a reasonable manner. See Millhouse v. Arbasak, 373 F. 

App'x 135,137 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Bell, 441 U.S. at 559-60). "When a prisoner moves 

through restricted areas of acorrectional facility, it is not unreasonable for staff to check for 

contraband via visual body cavity searches upon the prisoner's return." Jones v. Luzerne 

County Corr. Facility, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86430, *22-23 (M.D. Pa. 2010) (Vanaskie, J.) 

(citing Millhouse, 373 F. App'x 135). Further, strip searches can be conducted by prison 

11 


Case 3:15-cv-01797-RDM-CA Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 11 of 15
officials without probable cause. Jones, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86430 at *22 ("[I]nmates do 


not have aright 'to be free from strip searches."), citing Bell, 441 U.S. at 558. 

Plaintiffs allegation that the search was degrading and embarrassing fails to state a 

constitutional violation. See Millhouse, 373 F. App'x at 137 (body cavity strip "searches, 

even if embarrassing and humiliating, do not violate the constitution"). In Brown, the inmate 

alleged Fourth Amendment and Eighth Amendment violations relating to three (3) strip 

searches that he claimed were unsanitary, embarrassing, and in retaliation for having filed 

grievances against prison personnel. See Brown v. Blaine, 185 F. App'x 166,168-69 (3d 

Cir. 2006), cerl. denied, 549 U.S. 1064 (2006). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals 

determined that similar searches "have been held to be constitutional time and again." Id. at 

169-70, citing Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 700 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that astrip 

search performed in front of other inmates in which the prisoner was "told to 'run his fingers 

around his gums' after manipulating his genitalia" did not violate the constitution); Del Raine 

v. Williford, 32 F.3d 1024, 1038-41 (7th Cir. 1994) (concluding that there was no 

constitutional violation in a rectal search conducted in the lobby area of the prison's 

hospital); Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328,332 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding constitutional 

the prison's policy that requires visual body cavity searches every time an inmate 

leaves/returns to the maximum security unit); Goffv. Nix, 803 F.2d 358, 366-67, 378 (8th 

Cir. 1986) (upholding a prison policy that visual body cavity searches are performed 

12 

Case 3:15-cv-01797-RDM-CA Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 12 of 15
before/after contact visits, before/after being outside the prison, and before/after a 


segregated prisoner has mixed with the general population without supervision or 

restraints}. The Court stated that although Brown "may have suffered embarrassment and 

humiliation while the search was being conducted, we cannot conclude that Brown's 

constitutional rights were violated by the search procedures employed." Brown, 185 F. 

App'x at 170. 

This Court concludes that because the strip search was not unreasonable, Plaintiff 

has failed to allege a valid Fourth Amendment violation. See Payton, 798 F. Supp. at 

261-62. Next, the Court will consider whether Plaintiffs allegations rise to the level of an 

Eighth Amendment violation. 

Plaintiff claims that Defendants used "unnecessary force" during the strip search. 

(Doc. 1, p. 8). In order for aprisoner to state an Eighth Amendment claim for the excessive 

use of force by a prison official, he must establish that the force was not applied in a 

good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, but that it was maliciously and sadistically 

used to cause harm. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1,7 (1992). Under Hudson, the 

absence of aserious injury to the inmate is relevant to this court's inquiry, but does not end 

it. Id. However, U[t]he Eighth Amendment's prohibition of 'cruel and unusual' punishment 

necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, 

provided that the use of force is not of asort 'repugnant to the conscience of mankind.'" Id. 

13 


Case 3:15-cv-01797-RDM-CA Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 13 of 15
at 9-10 (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 327 (1986)). Plaintiff failed to meet his 


burden under Hudson. He has not set forth the requisite injury or demonstrated that the 

force involved was malicious or sadistic. Indeed, Plaintiff has not alleged that he sustained 

any injury during the strip search. Plaintiff simply alleges that his clothing was removed and 

he was compelled to make his body parts available for visual inspection. Consequently, 

Plaintiff failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim for relief. See, e.g., Watson v. Beard, 

2013 WL 4648323, at * 11 (W.O. Pa. 2013) (finding that the "Plaintiffs allegation that his 

genitals were 'massaged' or 'squeezed' during what were otherwise normal, routine 

pat-down searches .'. [was] simply insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment violation"). 

Under both the Fourth and Eighth amendments, Plaintiffs allegation that his 

constitutional rights were violated during the strip search must be dismissed. 

IV. Leave to Amend 

When acomplaint fails to present a prima facie case of liability, courts should 

generally grant leave to amend before dismissing acomplaint. See Grayson v. Mayview 

State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002); Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116-17 (3d 

Cir. 2000), Specifically, the Third Circuit has admonished that when acomplaint is subject 

to dismissal for failure to state aclaim, courts should liberally grant leave to amend "unless 

such an amendment would be inequitable or futile." Phillips, 515 F.3d at 245 (citing Alston 

v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004)). The federal rules allow for liberal 

14 


Case 3:15-cv-01797-RDM-CA Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 14 of 15
amendments in light of the "principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper 

decision on the merits." Fornan v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (citations and internal 

quotations omitted). For these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff should be 

afforded the opportunity to amend his complaint. 

V. Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' motions (Docs. 15,24) to dismiss will 

be granted. An appropriate order shall issue. 

Dated: June:s.-, 2016 

Robert D. Mariani 

United States District Judge 

15 


Case 3:15-cv-01797-RDM-CA Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 15 of 15