THOMAS v. MCGINLEY et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHRISTIAN SCOTT THOMAS, 	: 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-1658
:
Plaintiff 	: 	(Judge Neary)
:
v. 	:
:
THOMAS MCGINLEY, et al., 	:
:
Defendants 	:
MEMORANDUM
This is a prisoner civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff, Christian Scott Thomas, alleges that defendants violated his civil rights
by transferring him to another prison in retaliation for filing grievances, placing
him in solitary confinement, and subjecting him to strip searches. The case will be
dismissed with prejudice.
I. 	Factual Background & Procedural History
Thomas filed this case in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on August 27, 2025, and that court transferred the case to
this district on September 4, 2025. (Docs. 2, 6). On November 26, 2025, the court
dismissed the complaint without prejudice and granted Thomas leave to file an
amended complaint. (Docs. 11-12). Thomas filed an amended complaint on February
17, 2026. (Doc. 19).1
1 Thomas filed two motions for leave to amend in connection with his
amended complaint. (Docs. 17, 19). Because the court already granted him leave to
amend, the motions will be denied as moot.
Case 1:25-cv-01658-KMN-LT Document 20 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 7

2
Thomas’s amended complaint alleges that he was placed in SCI-Coal
Township’s restricted housing unit (“RHU”) and subsequently transferred to
another prison. (Doc. 19 at 1). Thomas asserts that he was never given a reason for
either action. (Id.). Thomas alleges that the actions were retaliation for his filing of
grievances against prison officials. (Id.). Thomas also asserts that he was subjected
to unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment
because he was strip searched multiple times while in the RHU. (Id. at 2). Finally,
Thomas alleges that his due process rights were violated because he was
transferred to another prison with no process. (Id. at 3).2
II. 	Legal Standard
The Prison Litigation Reform Act authorizes a district court to review a
complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis or
seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity. See 28 U.S.C. §
2 As the court previously noted, prior to her appointment to this court, the
undersigned was employed as an attorney with the Pennsylvania Office of the
Attorney General (“OAG”), which frequently represents individuals employed by the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and state correctional
institutions. Canon 3(C) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges requires a
judge to “disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” A federal statute similarly requires a
judge to “disqualify [herself] in any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might
reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Here, the court has reviewed this
matter and concludes that disqualification is not necessary. Although the
undersigned has represented DOC and state correctional employees in numerous
past cases, the undersigned does not have a personal or professional relationship
with any of the defendants. The undersigned also does not have any personal
knowledge of the plaintiff or the facts of this case.
Case 1:25-cv-01658-KMN-LT Document 20 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 7

3
1915(e)(2);3 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.4 The court is required to identify cognizable claims
and to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
In screening claims under Sections 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B), the court
applies the standard governing motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Coward v. City of Philadelphia, 546
F. Supp. 3d 331, 333 (E.D. Pa. 2021); Smith v. Delaware, 236 F. Supp.3d 882, 886
3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) provides:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may
have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that—
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal—
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
4 28 U.S.C. § 1915A provides:
(a) Screening.--The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or,
in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a
civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal.--On review, the court shall identify
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the
complaint, if the complaint--
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.
Case 1:25-cv-01658-KMN-LT Document 20 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 7

4
(D. Del. 2017). This standard requires the court to “accept all factual allegations as
true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff
may be entitled to relief.” Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir.
2008) (quoting Pinker v. Roche Holdings, Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002)).
Federal notice and pleading rules require the complaint to provide “the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Phillips, 515 F.3d at 232 (alteration in original) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To test the sufficiency of the complaint, the court
conducts a three-step inquiry. Santiago v. Warminster Township, 629 F.3d 121,
130-31 (3d Cir. 2010). In the first step, “the court must ‘tak[e] note of the elements a
plaintiff must plead to state a claim.’” Id. at 130 (alteration in original) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009)). Next, the factual and legal elements of
a claim must be separated; well-pleaded facts are accepted as true, while mere legal
conclusions may be disregarded. Id. at 131-32; Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d
203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009). Once the court isolates the well-pleaded factual
allegations, it must determine whether they are sufficient to show a “plausible
claim for relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A claim is
facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts “that allow[] the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678.
Case 1:25-cv-01658-KMN-LT Document 20 Filed 02/27/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Courts must liberally construe complaints brought by pro se litigants. Sause
v. Bauer, 585 U.S. 957, 960 (2018). Pro se complaints, “however inartfully pleaded,
must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
III. 	Discussion
Thomas’s federal constitutional claims are filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Section 1983 creates a cause of action to redress constitutional wrongs committed
by state officials. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute is not a source of substantive rights,
but serves as a mechanism for vindicating rights otherwise protected by federal law.
See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 284-85 (2002); Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d
1199, 1204 (3d Cir. 1996). To state a Section 1983 claim, plaintiffs must show a
deprivation of a “right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United
States . . . by a person acting under color of state law.” Kneipp, 95 F.3d at 1204
(quoting Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141 (3d Cir. 1995)).
As noted above, Thomas advances three constitutional claims: (1) retaliation
in violation of the First Amendment; (2) unconstitutional conditions of confinement
in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (3) violation of Thomas’s Fourteenth
Amendment right to due process.
To state a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) he engaged in
constitutionally protected conduct; (2) the defendant took retaliatory action against
him that was sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his
constitutional rights; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected
Case 1:25-cv-01658-KMN-LT Document 20 Filed 02/27/26 Page 5 of 7

6
conduct and the retaliatory action. Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 530 (3d Cir.
2003). Causation may be pleaded by alleging either an unusually suggestive
temporal proximity between the plaintiff’s protected conduct and the defendant’s
allegedly retaliatory action or a pattern of antagonism coupled with timing.
Dondero v. Lower Milford Twp., 5 F.4th 355, 361-62 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing Lauren W.
ex rel. Jean W. v. DeFlaminis, 480 F.3d 259, 267 (3d Cir. 2007)).
Here, Thomas’s complaint plainly fails to state a retaliation claim upon which
relief may be granted. The court previously dismissed his retaliation claim because
he offered nothing other than unsupported speculation to show a causal connection
between his filing of grievances and the defendants’ actions. Thomas has plainly
failed to cure this pleading defect: he states in his amended complaint that he was
never provided a reason for his placement in the RHU or his subsequent transfer
and simply speculates that such actions must have been retaliation.
Thomas’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims also fail to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Neither a short stint in solitary confinement nor
routine strip searches during that solitary confinement violate Thomas’s
constitutional rights.5 See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995); Parkell v.
Danberg, 833 F.3d 313, 334 (3d Cir. 2016). Thomas also does not have a due process
right to remain in any particular prison, so the prison was not required to provide
5 The amended complaint does not state how long Thomas was in the RHU,
but it appears from his allegation that he was placed in the RHU while he awaited
his transfer that it was only for a period of a few days.
Case 1:25-cv-01658-KMN-LT Document 20 Filed 02/27/26 Page 6 of 7

7
him any due process before transferring him. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238,
245 & n.6 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976).
Before dismissing a civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim, courts
must permit a curative amendment unless the amendment would be inequitable or
futile. Phillips, 515 F.3d at 245. Here, the court will deny leave to amend as futile.
Thomas has had multiple opportunities to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted and has failed to do so.
IV. 	Conclusion
Thomas’s amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. This case will be closed. An appropriate order shall issue.
/S/ K ELI M. N EARY
Keli M. Neary
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: 	February 27, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-01658-KMN-LT Document 20 Filed 02/27/26 Page 7 of 7