Henry, III v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PAUL J. HENRY Ill,
Plaintiff
V.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants
Civil No. 3:24-cv-301
(Judge Mariani)
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Paul Henry ("Henry"), an inmate housed at the State Correctional Institution,
Benner Township, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Benner Township"), initiated this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). The matter is proceeding via an amended
complaint and supplement thereto. 	(Docs. 16, 55).
Presently before the Court is Henry's motion to compel discovery. 	(Doc . 57). 	For
the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
I. 	Factual Background 1
The gravamen of Henry's amended complaint is that staff members rejected and
confiscated a box of his legal mail, which purportedly tested positive for synthetic
1 	For purposes of this Memorandum , the Court only includes the allegations of the second
amended complaint and does not include the allegat ions of the supplemental complaint. Thus far , the only
part ies that have engaged in discovery are Henry and the Defendants listed in the second amended
complaint. The newly named Defendants in the supplemental complaint have not yet been involved in the
discovery process .
Case 3:24-cv-00301-RDM-CA Document 76 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 12

cannabinoids, but also contained photographs relevant to his criminal conviction, which he
needed for the appeal of his state court sentence. 	He thus alleges that Defendants
interfered with his First Amendment right of access to the courts. The amended complaint
also sets forth several claims associated with his denial of access to the courts claim;
namely, that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and
Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, and that Defendants
engaged in improper employment practices and denied him the ability to pursue the redress
of grievances . The allegations are as follows.
On February 16, 2022, Henry alleges that his criminal defense attorney mailed him
two boxes of evidence pertaining to his criminal trial. 	(Doc. 16, p. 16 f 1). When the mail
arrived at the facility, Henry alleges that Defendant Boone, the SCI-Rockview mailroom
supervisor, accepted one box and rejected the other box.2 (Id. at p. 16 ff 2-3) . On March
1, 2022, Henry filed Grievance Number 970370 contesting the rejection of the second box
for failure to provide him a reason for the rejection. 	(Id . at p. 17 f 5). 	Defendant Boone
allegedly responded that the box was rejected because the attorney control number on each
box was different. (Id.). 	Defendant Boone did not provide a reason for his purported failure
to provide Henry with notice of the rejection. 	(Id.) . Henry asserts that he has photographs
of the boxes before they were sent, showing that they have the same attorney control
2 	Henry asserts that SCI-Benner Township does not have its own mailroom , and all inmate mail
is sent to the SCI-Rockview mailroom before being transferred to inmates at SCI-Benner Township. (Doc .
26 , p. 6) .
2
Case 3:24-cv-00301-RDM-CA Document 76 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 12

number. (Id.). 	Henry thus alleges that Defendant Boone lied about the rejection reason .
(Id .).
Henry asserts that his criminal defense attorney resent the rejected box to SCI-
Benner Townsh ip. 	(Id . at p. 16 f 4) . On March 3, 2022 , Henry was called to the legal
ma il room to accept the second box . (Id . at pp. 17-18 f 6) . When Henry arrived at the
ma ilroom, he discovered that the box was already opened, and he was informed that
security tested the box , and it tested positive for synthetic cannabinoids. 	(Id.). 	The box was
confiscated , and Henry was issued a confiscated items rece ipt. 	(Id.). 	On March 10 , 2022,
Defendant Kauffman issued misconduct number D692616 against Henry charg ing him with
possession of a dangerous or controlled substance and unauthorized use of the mail, and
Henry was placed in the restricted housing unit ("RHU "). (Id . at p. 18 f 7; Id . at p. 20 ff 1-
2) . A misconduct hearing convened on March 15, 2022, before Defendant-Hearing
Examiner Schneck . (Id . at p. 21 f 2). 	Defendant Schneck dismissed the charges against
Henry without prejudice. 	(Id.). 	Defendant Schneck purportedly found "no evidence" of
Henry 's guilt after reading Kauffman 's report and weighing the evidence . (Id.) .
On March 15, 2022 , Defendant Kauffman allegedly resubm itted the misconduct ,
des ignated as number D693631, setting forth the same charges against Henry . (Id . at p. 20
f 3). 	Defendant Kauffman attached a report indicating that the Security Processing Center
performed testing that confirmed the presence of synthetic cannabino ids and that the box
was sent to the Bureau of Investigations and Intelligence for further testing . (Id .). Henry
3
Case 3:24-cv-00301-RDM-CA Document 76 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 12

asserts that after Kauffman resubmitted the second , similar misconduct on March 15, 2022,
Schneck held an ex parte hearing on March 16 , 2022. 	(Id . at p. 21 ~ 3; Id. at p. 22 ~ 4).
During this ex parte hearing, Defendant Kauffman allegedly testified about a phone call
between Henry and his mother . (Id .). During that phone call , Henry's mother alleged ly said
she knew "that [the box] was fully loaded with pages[,]"-slang used for the introduction of
drugs into institutions. 	(Id.). 	Henry maintains his innocence and alleges that Defendant
Kauffman lied about the context of this phone call. 	(Id . at p. 23 ~ 4(b)). 	Defendant Schneck
ultimately found Henry guilty of the misconduct. (Id . at p. 25 ~ 5). 	Henry claims that
Defendant Schneck denied him due process, including the right to present video evidence
and witnesses, and the right to confront adverse witnesses. 	(Id.). 	Henry appealed
Schneck's decision to the Program Review Committee ("PRC") , which consisted of
Defendants, Booher, Grice, and Williamson . (Id. at p. 25 ~ 5(c)(1 )) . 	The PRC upheld
Schneck's decision , citing that Henry's witnesses were improper. 	(Id.). 	Henry asserts that
the PRC failed to address his request for video footage of the mailroom . (Id .). 	Henry then
appealed to the Superintendent , Defendant Houser, who upheld the PRC's decision. (Id. at
pp. 25-26 ~ (c)(2)). 	He next appealed to the Chief Hearing Examiner, Defendant Moslak ,
who upheld the prior decisions. (Id. p. 26 ~ 3; Id . at p. 27).
In his next claim, Henry alleges that Defendants Williamson , Grice, Ramirez ,
Bingman-Forshey, Quist, and Burd denied him access to the courts. (Id . at p. 32). 	Henry
states that he was placed in the RHU for 75 days - from March 10, 2022 through May , 24 ,
4
Case 3:24-cv-00301-RDM-CA Document 76 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 12

2022 . (Id. at p. 33 ~ 2(a)). 	During this time, he claims that Defendant Williamson denied
him access to his legal property when Williams stated that he was only allowed one box of
legal materials in his cell. 	(Id.). 	Henry also claims that Williamson did not allow him to
make copies of exhibits that he intended to file with his legal brief, stating that there were
too many pages to be copied . (Id. at p. 34 ~ 3). 	Henry then asked Defendant Grice to
make copies of the exhibits and informed him that he had an upcoming court-ordered
deadline. (Id.). 	Defendant Grice allegedly told Henry that he could not make the copies due
to the number of pages, and that the courts would be flexible with deadlines. (Id.). 	Henry
also asserts that Defendants Ramirez and Bingman-Forshey would not allow him to make
copies with a cash slip but required him to provide a "Venda-copy card." (Id. at p. 35 ~
(3)(c)). 	Henry maintains that he was not allowed to have his "Venda-copy card" on his
person while in the RHU; it was stored with his legal property. 	(Id.). 	Henry further alleges
that Defendants Quist and Burd failed to respond to requests he had made while in the RHU
for extension of deadlines and requests for the status of outstanding grievances. 	(Id. at p.
35) .
Henry next alleges that the DOC, Kauffman , Bookheimer , Little, Harry, Booher , and
House denied him access to the courts by confiscating the second box of legal mail, which
he claims was vital to his Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") petition challenging his
conviction and sentence. 	(Id . at pp. 39-40). 	Henry asserts that he made multiple requests
to Kauffman and Bookheimer, demanding the return of the photographs contained in the
5
Case 3:24-cv-00301-RDM-CA Document 76 Filed 01/09/26 Page 5 of 12

box , or copies thereof , but never received a response. 	(Id . at p. 40 ~ 2). 	Henry also avers
that he wrote to then-Secretary Little and Secretary Harry, request ing the return of the
photographs or copies thereof . (Id . at pp. 41 -42). 	He claims neither responded. 	(Id .)
Henry maintains that he has been harmed as a result of the DOC's employment
practices. 	(Id. at p. 47) . He lodges this claim against the DOC , Little, Harry , Booher ,
Houser, Boone, Ramirez, and Heist. (Id .). In describing this claim , Henry alleges that he
first lost his legal mail at SCI-Camp Hill in June of 2021. 	(Id. at p. 49) . Because this mail
was allegedly lost, Henry 's criminal attorney attempted to remail the evidence in the two
boxes he sent to SCI-Rockview . (Id. at p. 51 ). 	Henry also claims that Boone prev iously
rejected his mail without notifying him of the rejections. 	(Id . at pp . 49-54). 	From June 2021
to October 2023 , Henry asserts that he either lost mail or mail had been improperly
confiscated. 	(Id . at pp . 54-58) . He also asserts that Defendant Ramirez improperly
removed an envelope from the law library conta ining a portion of his PCRA petition. 	(Id. at
pp . 58-59) . Henry alleges that Ramirez then lost the envelope containing part of his PCRA
petition. 	(Id . at p. 59).
Henry next brings a claim against the DOC , Quist , Burd , Grice , Houser, Booher,
Wil liamson, Heist , Ramirez , and Boone , alleging that the prison grievance system itself
interferes with his right to seek redress of gr ievances. 	(Id . at pp . 62-63). 	He asserts that he
had several grievances pending when he was placed in the RHU and the security
department confiscated these grievances. (Id. at pp. 63, 82). 	Henry believes that he should
6
Case 3:24-cv-00301-RDM-CA Document 76 Filed 01/09/26 Page 6 of 12

not be required to pay for copies of all prior grievances and appeals at each level to exhaust
his administrative relief, and that he should not have to provide copies of supporting
documentation. 	(Id. at pp. 63-68). 	In support, he avers that the Department of Corrections
("DOC") already has the originals and is engaging in extortion by requiring inmates to pay
for extra copies. 	(Id.) . He also accuses the DOC of encouraging staff to interfere with
grievances by lying, avoiding filing a response, providing illegible signatures to avoid
providing staff names, and delaying grievances in order to deny them as untimely. (Id. at
pp. 68-76). 	Henry also asserts that Defendants Quist, Grice, Bookheimer, and Williamson
intimidate and threaten grievance filers. 	(Id . at pp. 77-80) .
Finally, Henry brings a cruel and unusual punishment claim against the DOC, Boone,
Booher, Quist, Harry, Ramirez, Bingman-Forshey , Grice, and Bookheimer, asserting they
denied him access to courts by interfering with his legal mail and using Smart
Communications to delay his mail. 	(Id. at pp. 82-86). 	He also asserts that he has lost legal
mail and has been denied access to stored legal property. 	(Id. at pp. 86-89). 	He complains
of lack of access to the law library and lack of refunds for printing costs. 	(Id . at pp. 90-91 ).
11. 	Legal Standard
A party who has received evasive or incomplete discovery responses may seek a
court order compelling disclosures or discovery of the materials sought. FED. R. CIv P.
37(a). 	The moving party must demonstrate the relevance of the information sought to a
particular claim or defense. The burden then shifts to the opposing party , who must
7
Case 3:24-cv-00301-RDM-CA Document 76 Filed 01/09/26 Page 7 of 12

demonstrate in specific terms why a discovery request does not fall within the broad scope
of discovery or is otherwise privileged or improper. 	Goodman v. Wagner, 553 F. Supp . 255,
258 (E.D. Pa. 1982).
Generally, courts afford considerable latitude in discovery in order to ensure that
litigation proceeds with "the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial."
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S . 495, 501 (1947). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)
provides that a party "may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case ...
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable." FED . R. C1v . P. 26(b)(1 ). "[A]II relevant material is discoverable unless an
applicable evidentiary privilege is asserted. 	The presumption that such matter is
discoverable , however , is defeasible." Pearson v. Miller, 211 F.3d 57, 65 (3d Cir. 2000) .
Furthermore , the court may limit discovery if the discovery sought is unreasonably
cumulative, duplicative, or readily obtainable from some other source, the party seeking
discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information through discovery, or the
proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1 ). 	FED. R. C1v . P.
26(b )(2)( C) .
Ill. 	Discussion
In the instant motion to compel, Henry challenges Defendants' responses to his
discovery requests . (Docs. 57 , 58). 	Specifically, Henry takes issue with Defendants'
8
Case 3:24-cv-00301-RDM-CA Document 76 Filed 01/09/26 Page 8 of 12

following discovery responses : (1) failing to preserve video footage "proving" that Henry's
legal mailbox #2 was already opened outside his presence on March 3, 2022; (2)
withho lding the names of individuals likely to have discoverable information ; (3) denying
Henry the opportunity to properly inspect audio/phone recordings; and (4) failing to make full
disclosures and cooperate with the discovery process in general. 	(Doc. 58) . The Court will
address each challenge in turn .
A. 	Request for Video Footage
Henry seeks an order to compel Defendants to show him video footage "proving"
that Henry's legal mailbox #2 was already opened outside his presence on March 3, 2022.
(Doc . 58, at 5, 8-9) . Henry requested this video footage in his first request for product ion of
documents. 	(Doc. 59 -3, at 5 ~ 1). In response to this request, Defendants responded that
they "are not in possession of any such videos from 3/3/22. The Pennsylvania Department
of Corrections only keeps video footage for 30 days , unless otherwise requested to
preserve ." (Id .).
In Defendants' response to the instant motion to compel , Defendants again assert
that the video footage does not exist. (Doc . 64 , at 7-8). 	Henry argues that Defendants
acted in bad faith by fa iling to preserve the video footage , despite his requests to view the
video. 	(Doc. 58 , at 9) . The Court finds that Henry has failed to substantiate his claim that
Defendants have acted in bad faith , and the Court credits Defendants ' representat ion that
9
Case 3:24-cv-00301-RDM-CA Document 76 Filed 01/09/26 Page 9 of 12

the video evidence does not exist because it was recycled in the ordinary course of
business.
The Court is unable to compel the Defendants to produce evidence that does not
exist. And the Court is unable to compel the creation of evidence by parties who attest that
they do not possess the materials sought. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion to
compel to the extent that Henry requests an order directing Defendants to produce video for
March 3, 2022 . That being said , Defendants are directed to file a sworn affidavit or
declaration on the docket attesting to the steps taken to verify that the requested video does
not exist.
B. 	Request for Names of Individuals with Discoverable Information
Henry next asserts that Defendants withheld the names of individuals likely to have
discoverable information by providing redacted documents . (Doc . 58, at 3 ,r 19). He claims
that Defendants provided documents that "had pertinent information 'CUT OFF."' (Id.). 	In
response, Defendants indicate that , in those documents, they redacted the names of DOC
staff members for their safety and to protect Henry 's "personally identifying information
(PI I)". 	(Doc . 64 , at 7; see also Doc. 59-12 , at 31 ,r,r 3-4). 	Defendants indicate further that
they resent the documents that Henry identified as having had portions "cut off' and sent
them in the format in which Defendants possessed them. 	(Id.). 	The Court will accept the
representation of defense counsel that Henry was resent the sought documents in corrected
10
Case 3:24-cv-00301-RDM-CA Document 76 Filed 01/09/26 Page 10 of 12

form. 	Therefore , the Court will grant this request. 	In the event that Henry has not received
the new documents, he may file a motion for sanct ions.
C. 	Request for Audio Recordings
Henry seeks an order to compel Defendants to allow him to properly review
audio/phone recordings. 	(Doc. 58 , at 5-7, 9-11 ). 	Henry admits that he was able to review
the phone recordings but argues that he was not able to take notes or ask the security
captain to replay the information . (Id . at 9-11 ). 	In response , Defendants assert that they
"already reaffirmed their willingness to facilitate Plaintiffs review of the calls. " (Doc . 64 , at
7). The Court will accept the representation of defense counsel that Henry will be provided
another opportunity to review the relevant phone recordings. 	Therefore, the Court will grant
this request. 	In the event that Henry is not afforded the opportunity to review the relevant
audio/phone recordings, he may file a motion for sanctions.
D. 	General Request for Full Cooperation in Discovery
Henry also takes issue with Defendants' overall responses to his discovery requests
and asserts that they have not made full disclosures or cooperated in the discovery process.
(Doc. 58, at 6) . He maintains that Defendants have not abided by the Federal Rules of Civi l
Procedure because they have not responded to discovery requests in the 30 days to do so
contemplated by the Rules. 	(Doc. 57 ~ 5; Doc. 58 , at 7-8).
The record before the Court evinces that the parties have engaged in signi fi cant
discovery and Defendants have provided responses to Heney's requests . (See Doc. 59-2 ;
11
Case 3:24-cv-00301-RDM-CA Document 76 Filed 01/09/26 Page 11 of 12

Doc. 59-3 at 4-1 O; Doc . 59-4; Doc. 59-5; Doc. 59-6; Doc. 59-7; Doc. 59-12, at 3-4, 30-33;
Docs. 64-1 through 64-8) . Henry has not demonstrated that Defendants are acting in bad
faith and are willfully disregarding discovery deadlines and orders . Therefore, any request
that Defendants be ordered to comply with the discovery process will be denied.
IV. 	Conclusion
Consistent with the foregoing, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Henry's
motion to compel. 	(Doc. 57). A separate Order shall issue.
) 	.
Rbbe 	D. Marian·
United States District Judge
Dated: January q 	,2026
12
Case 3:24-cv-00301-RDM-CA Document 76 Filed 01/09/26 Page 12 of 12