NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-2176

___________

MICHAEL HINTON,

Appellant

v.

TIMOTHY MARK, Chief Hearing Examiner; RAYMOND SOBINA, Superintendent; 

PATTI MCKISSOCH, Hearing Examiner; MR. PATZ, Psychologist; 

SANDRA GORNIAK, Accountant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 10-cv-00305)

District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 12, 2013

Before: FUENTES, GREENBERG and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 13, 2013)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Michael Hinton, a Pennsylvania state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order 

of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that sua 
2

sponte dismissed his civil rights action. For the reasons below, we will vacate the 

judgment of the District Court and remand for further proceedings.

In 2010, Hinton filed a complaint, which he later amended, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, alleging that prison officials failed to prevent his suicide attempt, improperly 

prevented him from sending money from his prison account to hire an attorney, and 

violated his constitutional rights at subsequent prison hearings. A Magistrate Judge 

recommended dismissing the complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim. The 

District Court adopted that recommendation and denied further leave to amend the 

complaint. Hinton appealed.1 

Hinton claimed that he has a “history of suicide attempts . . . based on [his] mental 

illness.” Compl., ¶ 21 (Dist. Ct. Doc. 1-2). While incarcerated at SCI-Albion on January 

2, 2009, Hinton pressed an “emergency call button” in his cell. When a corrections 

officer responded, Hinton stated that he was contemplating suicide because he had 

recently learned about the death of a family member. Consequently, Mr. Patz, a prison 

psychologist, went to see Hinton in his cell. When Hinton repeated his suicide threat to 

Patz, Patz “told [Hinton] that the psychiatric observation cell was full [and] that [Hinton] 

has to be cool because [Patz] was getting ready to leave for today [and] could not do 

anything until Monday.” Compl. ¶ 16. Later, Hinton took nine Sinequan pills in an 

 

1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review of the 

District Court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Allah v. Seiverling, 

229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). In deciding whether the District Court’s dismissal of 

Hintons’ complaint was proper, we “accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint 

and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom.” Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 

65 (3d Cir. 1996).
3

attempt to kill himself. A corrections officer who witnessed the suicide attempt contacted 

the prison medical staff, who had Hinton transported to the hospital. He remained in the 

hospital until January 4, 2009.

The Magistrate Judge concluded that “Hinton alleges at most that Patz failed to 

take additional steps that a reasonable person might have taken to prevent Hinton’s 

alleged suicide attempt. If Hinton had actually suffered harm[,] that might at most 

amount to an allegation of negligence, but not deliberate indifference.”2 The Magistrate 

did not specifically consider the three elements that plaintiffs in prison suicide cases bear 

the burden of establishing: “(1) the detainee had a ‘particular vulnerability to suicide,’ 

(2) the custodial officer or officers knew or should have known of that vulnerability, and 

(3) those officers ‘acted with reckless indifference’ to the detainee’s particular 

vulnerability.”3 Colburn v. Upper Darby Twp., 946 F.2d 1017, 1023 (3d Cir. 1991) 

(quoting Colburn v. Upper Darby Twp., 838 F.2d 663, 669 (3d Cir. 1988)). 

Hinton’s allegations state a claim under this standard. Hinton announced that he 

intended to kill himself, which indicates a “strong likelihood, rather than a mere 

 

2

To the extent that the Magistrate Judge concluded that Hinton’s claim failed because he 

did not satisfy the physical injury requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), this was error. 

Cf. Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 536 (3d Cir. 2003) (“requiring a less-thansignificant-but-more-than-de minimis physical injury as a predicate to allegations of 

emotional injury.”).

3 Although this standard is framed in terms of pretrial detainees, we note that the same 

standard may apply to convicted prisoners. See Woloszyn v. County of Lawrence, 396 

F.3d 314, 319 n.5 (3d Cir. 2005) (noting that “in developing our jurisprudence on pretrial detainees’ suicides we looked to the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits the 

infliction of cruel and unusual punishment on convicted prisoners . . . .”).
4

possibility, that self-inflicted harm will occur.” Colburn, 946 F.2d at 1024 (quoting 

Torraco v. Maloney, 923 F.2d 231, 236 (1st Cir. 1991)). Patz was clearly aware of this 

likelihood. He had been summoned to Hinton’s cell by a corrections officer who had 

responded to Hinton’s emergency call. Hinton then directly told Patz that he was 

suicidal. Hinton claims that Patz knew about his history of suicide attempts and was 

aware that one of his family members had recently died, factors which arguably increase 

the likelihood of self-harm. Am. Compl. ¶ 1 (Dist. Ct. Doc. No. 11). These allegations 

demonstrate that Patz knew that Hinton had a “particular vulnerability to suicide.” 

Colburn, 946 F.2d at 1025 (noting that “[t]he strong likelihood of suicide must be so 

obvious that a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for preventative action; the 

risk of self-inflicted injury must not only be great, but also sufficiently apparent that a lay 

custodian’s failure to appreciate it evidences an absence of any concern for the welfare of 

his or her charges.”). Moreover, Patz arguably acted with reckless indifference. He 

allegedly considered placing Hinton in a “psychiatric observation cell,” but did not do so 

because those cells were full. Instead, Patz noted that he was getting ready to leave for 

the day (it was a Friday), stated that he could not do anything until Monday, and simply 

counseled Hinton to “be cool.” Under these circumstances, it was error to sua sponte 

dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. See Colburn, 838 F.2d at 669 (3d Cir.

1988) (stating that “failure to take any steps to save a suicidal [inmate] from injuring 

himself may also constitute” a constitutional violation.).

Hinton was “given a misconduct” for his suicide attempt. Compl. ¶ 15. A 

disciplinary hearing was held on January 9, 2009, and Hinton pleaded guilty. Id. at ¶ 16. 
5

He was ordered to serve 90 days in disciplinary confinement and his prison account was 

“assess[ed] [for] any costs incurred as a result of his actions.” See Am. Compl., Ex. A 

(Dist. Ct. Doc. No. 7-1). The Department of Corrections (“DOC”) notified Hinton that a 

hearing would be held to determine the amount of money that would be assessed from his 

account. He was assessed a fee of $6318.30, and his rate of payment was set at 30%. 

See Objections to Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), Ex. A (Dist. Ct. Doc. No. 14-

1). Hinton also claimed that a prison accountant, Sandra Gorniak, blocked his attempt to 

send $570 from his prison account to his family to hire a lawyer to represent him at that 

hearing. See Am. Compl., ¶ 7 (Dist. Ct. Doc. No. 7). 

With respect to the attempted $570 withdrawal, the Magistrate Judge held that 

Hinton’s claims were “implausible.”4 We disagree. To survive dismissal, “a complaint 

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). It is not implausible that Gorniak 

prevented Hinton from withdrawing money from his prison account. Moreover, such 

action can constitute a due process violation. See Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166, 

179 (3d Cir. 1997) (recognizing that inmates have a property interest in their prison 

account funds); see also Burns v. PA Dept. of Corr., 544 F.3d 279, 291 (3d Cir. 2008) 

(holding that assessment of prison funds, as distinguished from an actual deduction or 

seizure, constituted a protected property interest for purposes of procedural due process).

 

4

The Magistrate Judge also noted that Hinton “does not even identify his counsel.” It is 

not clear, however, why such identification is necessary to state a claim. 
6

The Magistrate Judge also rejected Hinton’s due process claim pertaining to the 

assessment of his prison account for medical costs related to his suicide attempt. 

“[C]harging inmates for medical fees is not unconstitutional per se[,]” and due process 

may be satisfied if the inmate has notice of the fee policy and access to post-deprivation 

remedies. Reynolds, 128 F.3d at 179-81. Under Pennsylvania law, the DOC “will 

charge a fee to an inmate for . . . [m]edical service provided to the inmate as the result of 

a self-inflicted injury . . . .” 37 Pa. Code § 93.12(c)(2). Whether an inmate is responsible 

for that fee is determined at a disciplinary hearing, while the amount of that fee is 

separately determined at what is known as a “Holloway hearing.” Burns v. PA Dept. of 

Corr., 642 F.3d 163, 178-79 (3d Cir. 2011). 

Hinton claims that he “never had a hearing” to adjudicate whether his prison 

account could be debited. Am. Compl., ¶ 4 (Dist. Ct. Doc. No. 11). In support of this 

assertion, Hinton notes that the Misconduct Number on the Disciplinary Hearing Report 

(B046684) does not match the Misconduct Number listed on the Holloway hearing notice 

(A466795). See Am. Compl., Exs. A & C (Dist. Ct. Doc. No. 7-1). If, as the Magistrate 

Judge concluded, this was simply a clerical error, it is likely that there was no due process 

violation. Notably, the Disciplinary Hearing Report states, “assess inmate’s account any 

costs incurred as a result of his actions.”5 But Hinton asserts that the charge that he 

pleaded guilty to at the Disciplinary Hearing (identified on the Report simply as “36”) 

 

5

This statement undermines Hinton’s allegation that the Report fails to “include a 

statement describing the item . . . or the reimbursement that may be ordered . . . .” Am. 

Compl., ¶ 4 (Dist. Ct. Doc. No. 11). 
7

pertained to possession of contraband, and that the DOC issued a separate Misconduct

Number (A842593) for offenses related to his suicide attempt. It could be that the 

possession of contraband charge was related to the Sinequan pills ingested by Hinton, and 

that his guilty plea to that charge was sufficient to support the prison account assessment 

sanction. 

Given the limited record, however, it is difficult to sort out this claim. The 

Magistrate Judge avoided the shortcomings in the record by concluding that Hinton “does 

not allege that any amount was assessed before his Holloway hearing, nor even that any 

amount has been taken from his account since then.” Clearly, though, Hinton asserted 

that money was withdrawn from his prison account to pay the medical costs. See Am. 

Compl., ¶ 12 (Dist. Ct. Doc. No. 11) (stating that a defendant “even went as far as to . . . 

go on in deducting and taking funds for medical expenses unjustly.”); Objections to 

R&R, Exhibits A-1 to A-3 (Dist. Ct. Doc. No. 14-1) (copies of inmate account statements 

listing deductions for “medical costs”). Based on the possibility that Hinton was not 

afforded an opportunity to challenge whether his prison account should be assessed, we 

conclude that this claim was not suitable for sua sponte dismissal.

For the foregoing reasons, we will vacate the District Court’s judgment and 

remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.6

 

6 We grant Hinton’s motion to supplement the appendix with an affidavit that was 

submitted to the District Court. Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(2)(C). Hinton’s “Motion to 

Response to Appellant Brief,” which requests sanctions against the Appellees for failing 

to file a brief, is denied. We also deny Hinton’s request to have the Department of

Corrections cease deducting filing fees from his prison account pending the outcome of 

this appeal.