Wilson v. Ramer et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM WILSON,
v.
LT. RAMER, et al.,
Plaintiff
Defendants
No. 3:25cv315
(Judge Munley)
■ ••••••• ■ ••••••••••• ■ •••••••••••••••••••••• ■ ■ ••• ■ ■ ••• ■ • ■ ••••••• ■ • ■ • ■ •••••••••••• ■ ■ •••••••• ■ •• ■ •••••••••• ■ •••
■ •••••••• ■ ■• ■ • ■ •••• ■ ••••••••••• ■• ■• ■ ••••••••••••••••• ■ ••••••••• ■ • ■ • ■ ••••• ■ •• • ••• ■ ••••••••• ■ ••••• ■ ■ ••••••••••
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff William Wilson ("Wilson") commenced this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants violated his rights under
the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, when he was housed at the State
Correctional Institution, Frackville, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Frackville"). (Doc. 1).
Named as defendants are Lieutenant Ramer, Lieutenant Cress, Lieutenant Mohl,
Sergeant Parsal, Sergeant Walter, Sergeant Lucas, Correctional Officer Frantz,
Correctional Officer Thomas, Correctional Officer Forte, Correctional Officer
Shellhamer, and Correctional Officer Figueiredo.
Presently before the court is defendants' motion (Doc. 13) to partially
dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b )(6).
Wilson represents that he does not oppose defendants' motion. 	(Doc. 26)
(stating that "[Wi lson] did not oppose Defendant[s'] said motion and hopes to
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 17

avoid filing an Amended Complaint" ). 	For the reasons that follow, the court will
grant defendants' motion and grant Wilson leave to amend his claims against
defendants Cress and Mohl.
I. 	Factual Background
A. 	Facts Related to Defendant Figueiredo
Wils on alleges that, on an unspecified date prior to October 1, 2023,
defendant Figueiredo allegedly saw him exiting SCI -Frackville's security office for
book pickup, "perhaps being the reason why he attacked [Wilson] the way he
did. " (Doc. 1 at 8 ,i 23). Wilson explains the "attack" by defendant Figueiredo as
follows.
On October 1, 2023, at approximately 8:00 a.m ., Wilson went to the
education building at SCI-Frackville to attend the law library. (Doc. 1 at 7 ,i 15).
Defendant Figueiredo was at the metal detector at the entrance to the building
and monitored each inmate walking through the machine. 	(~ ,i 16 ). 	Wilson
alleges that, when the inmate in front of him went through the metal detector,
defendant Figueiredo purposely hit the side of the metal detector and set it off.
(~ ,i 17). The inmate in front of Wilson looked directly at Figueiredo and asked
him, "did you just do that[?]" (~ ,i 18). Figueiredo denied hitting the metal
detector, "trying to make it seem as if [Wilson] was the one who did it , causing
2
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 17

tension between the two inmates ." 	(lit ,I 19). 	Wilson immediately said , " he 's
lying , he did do it, I saw him do it[.]" (lit ,I 20). Figueiredo then got angry and
called Wilson "a rat and a snitch ," in the presence of at least five other inmates
and another non-defendant Correctional Officer. 	(lit at 7-8 ,I,I 21 , 25). As
stated , Wilson speculates that Figueiredo attacked him because he previously
saw Wilson leave the security office. 	(lit at 8 ,I 23).
Wilson then proceeded to the law library. 	(lit ,I 25). 	Once in the law
library, Wilson alleges that other inmates "laughed and spoke about how
Defendant Figueiredo called [Wilson] a 'rat'[.]" (lit ,I 26).
Wilson alleges that after Figueiredo's comments, Wilson has been called
'" rats and snitches' to his face by inmate[ ]s and different staff members
(including Defendants) as well as behind [Wilson ' s] back. " 	(lit ,I 27).
Wilson asserts that inmates at SCI -Frackvil le now believe that Wilson
provided information about inmates to the security office. 	(lit ,I 28). Wilson
alleges that he has been assaulted by fellow inmates due to these allegations.
(lit ,I 29). 	He further alleges that he is no longer welcome at religious gatherings
and was ostracized as a "rat and snitch" by other inmates. 	(lit at 8-9 ,I,I 30- 31 ).
3
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 17

B. 	Facts Regarding Inmate Grievances and Misconducts in October
2023
Wilson alleges that he fully exhausted the available administrative
remedies regarding his current claims by filing multiple grievances, some of
which were exhausted , and some which he was prevented from exhausting.
(Doc. 1 at 2 ,i II). Wilson acknowledges that there is a prison grievance
procedure available at the institution where he was housed at the time he filed
his complaint, the State Correctional Institution at Chester. (Doc. 1 at 2 ,i II; Doc.
1 at 5 ,i 3) .
On October 2, 2023, Wilson filed grievance number 1055016 related to
defendant Figueiredo's alleged comments. 	(Doc. 1 at 9 ,i 32). Wilson alleges
that after he submitted grievance number 1055016, the defendants and another
non-defendant officer warned Wilson that if he did not sign off on his grievance ,
he would suffer retaliation. 	(kt ,i 33).
Wilson then alleges that, on October 7, 2023, defendant Lucas issued a
false misconduct against him (number 0954436) in hopes that Wilson would be
sent to the Restricted Housing Unit ("RHU "). 	(kt ,i 34). 	Misconduct number
0954436 charged Wilson with being " in an unauthorized area" and falsely
mentioned that Correctional Officer Trutt (a non-defendant) was involved in the
misconduct. 	(kt ,i,i 35-36). 	At the time , the charge of presence "in an
4
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 17

unauthorized area" was eligible for 90 days in the RHU. 	(kl 1135). 	After
receiving a copy of misconduct number 0954436 on October 7, 2023, Wilson
showed the misconduct to Correctional Officer Trutt. 	(kl 1137). 	Correctional
Officer Trutt reviewed the misconduct and allegedly told defendant Lucas that
Wilson should not have received the misconduct because Trutt gave Wilson
permission to be out of his cell at that time. 	(kl 1138). 	Wilson alleges that
defendant Lucas then "scold[ed]" Correctional Officer Trutt "for being honest" and
informed Trutt that Wilson recently submitted a grievance against another officer,
and stated '" for get (sic) him , that's what he gets' (referring to fabricated
misconduct #0954436) ." 	(kl 1139). 	After overhearing this conversation , Wilson
requested to speak with a supervisor. 	(kl at 9-1011 40). 	In response , Lieutenant
Peters informed Wilson that he spoke to defendant Lucas and Correctional
Officer Trutt, and he stated that the misconduct should not have been issued to
Wilson. 	(kl at 101142). 	On October 12 , 2023, following a hearing, misconduct
number 0954436 was dismissed without prejudice due to Lieutenant Peters'
testimony. 	(kl 1145) .
Shortly after misconduct number 0954436 was dismissed , Lieutenant
Schuetrum (a non-defendant) interviewed Wilson about grievance number
1055016 and informed Wilson that Figueiredo's comments about Wilson were
5
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 5 of 17

addressed and handled. 	(kl ,m 46-47). Lieutenant Schuetrum also informed
Wilson that she was aware of the retaliation Wilson was experiencing due to filing
this grievance and that Wilson "should just sign off on said grievance to prevent
any further retaliation ." 	(kl at 10 -1 1 1148) . Wilson declined to sign off on the
grievance. 	(kl 111148 , 50). 	Wilson alleges that "within days of that interview[,]"
defendant Lucas resubmitted the same "falsified misconduct" that he issued
against Wilson on October 7, 2023. 	(kl at 11 111150 - 51 ). The resubmitted
misconduct was documented as number 0497244 and charged Wilson with
being in an "unauthorized area[,]" as well as a new, unspecified charge. 	(kl 11
51 ). 	At the hearing for this second misconduct (number 0497244), Wilson "again
bea t" the charge of being in an unauthorized area but was given a warning for
the new charge with no sanction. 	(kl at 11-12 1156).
Wilson contends that he complained to a non-defendant employee at SCI-
Frackville about the retaliation he experienced . 	(kl at 11 111152-53) .
Wilson alleges that Department of Corrections' employees, including the
defendants, informed him that defendant Lucas "was looking to cause [Wilson]
any type of discomfort due to [Wilson] filing grievances against other Officers. "
(kl 11 53).
6
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 6 of 17

C. 	Facts Related to Legal Materials
On November 12 , 2023, while compiling information and preparing to file a
legal complaint in the law library, Wilson was approached by defendants Ramer
and Frantz. 	(kl at 12 ,-r 58). Wilson alleges that he was called into the hallway
where defendant Ramer said "oh , these are your grievances hah , I'm allowed to
look at these ," then proceeded to take Wilson 's legal papers and rummage
through his files and threatened to send Wilson to the RHU . (kl ,-r,-r 59 -60).
Wilson alleges that defendant Ramer threw some of his legal materials in the
trash can . 	(kl ,-r 61 ). 	Defendants Ramer and Frantz continued to go through
Wilson 's legal materials and allegedly told Wilson to go back to his block and
prepare to go to the RHU . 	(1.9.: ,-r 64 ). 	Wilson alleges that he left the law library
and saw defendant Frantz walk towards the security office with his legal
materials. 	(1.9.: at 13 ,-r 65).
After arriving back on his unit, Wilson spoke to an unknown third-party
captain and informed him that defendants Ramer and Frantz took his legal
materials. (kl ,-r,-r 66-67). 	Later that day, some of Wilson 's legal materials were
returned to him. 	(kl ,-r,-r 67-68). Wilson asserts that certain documents
supporting his retaliation claim were missing . 	(kl ,-r 69).
7
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 7 of 17

O. 	Facts Related to Inmate Grievances and Misconducts in November
2023
On November 13 , 2023, Wilson filed grievance number 1060826 asserting
that defendants Ramer and Frantz threatened him and confiscated his legal
materials without cause. 	(19..: ,I 70). 	On November 15 , 2023, Wilson was
interviewed by Captain Moser (a non-defendant) regarding grievance number
1060826. 	(19..: ,I 71 ). 	Moser asked Wilson to sign off on the grievance because
Moser was unable to substantiate the claims due to lack of audio from the video
surveillance of the incident. 	(19..: ,I,I 71-72). 	Wilson declined to sign off on the
grievance. 	(19..: at 14 ,I 76). 	He alleges that multiple officers continued to harass
him. 	(19..:) .
On January 5, 2024, Wilson alleges that five officers, including two
defendants, escorted him from the gym to the RHU because of another
fabricated misconduct (number 0954462) authored by defendant Forte. 	(19..: 1l
77). Misconduct number 0954462 set forth three unspecified charges against
Wilson , and each was eligible for 90 days in solitary confinement. 	(19..: at 14-15
,I,I 77-78, 84). Wilson was placed in the RHU in a cell with a camera cell due to
his deteriorating mental health. 	(19..: at 14 ,I 79). 	On January 6, 2024, defendant
Forte informed Wilson that he only issued misconduct number 0954462 because
defendant Lucas asked him to get Wilson sent to the RHU for filing grievances.
8
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 8 of 17

(~ ,I 80). Defendant Forte also informed Wilson that he would be a witness at
the misconduct hearing to get leniency for Wilson . (~ ,I 81 ). 	On January 9,
2024, a hearing was held on misconduct number 0954462. 	(~ at 14-15 ,I 82).
Defendant Forte was not at the hearing . 	(~) . The hearing examiner found in
Wilson 's favor and released him to his original block. 	(~ at 15 ,I 83).
Prior to Wilson leaving the RHU , on January 7 or 8, 2024, defendant Walter
inventoried Wilson 's personal property, which was gathered and packed from
Wilson 's original cell in general population on January 5, 2024 by defendants
Thomas and Shellhamer. (~ ,I 85). Wilson noticed that some of his property
was either destroyed or missing , including his legal materials. 	(~ ,I 86).
Defendant Walter allegedly blamed Thomas and Shellhamer and listed on the
property inventory sheet that Wilson "alleged" that he was missing legal
materials. (~ ,I,I 87-88). 	Defendant Walter also allegedly informed Wilson that
he needed to send some items home or destroy them . 	(~ ,I 89). Wilson alleges
that defendant Walter forced him to sign a cash slip to avoid the destruction of
his property. 	(~ at 16 ,I 92).
On January 9, 2024, before his release from the RHU , Wilson again
noticed that more of his personal property and legal materials were missing. 	(~
,I 93). 	Wilson alleges that defendants Shellhamer, Thomas, and Walter
9
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 9 of 17

destroyed or confiscated his property in retaliation for Wilson 's grievances. 	(~ ,i
94).
On January 22 , 2024, Wilson complained to Unit Manager Cintron (a non-
defendant) about his missing property. 	(~ ,i 95 ). 	Unit Manager Citron allegedly
advised Wilson to file a grievance, even though Wilson already filed grievance
numbers 1069820 and 1699824 on January 11 , 2024 against defendants
Shellhamer, Thomas , and Walter. (~ ,i 96). 	In reviewing Wilson 's claim
regarding missing property, Cintron could only prove that Wilson 's razor was
missing. 	(~ ,i 97).
On January 17 , 2024, defendant Parsal went to Wilson 's cell and yelled
"you[' re] a rat, rat Wilson[.]" (~ ,i 98). 	On that same evening , Wilson filed a
grievance (number 1070262) related to this incident. 	(~ at 17 ,i,i 102-103). 	The
following day, Wilson reported the incident to the security office. 	(~ ,i,i 104-
105). After Wilson reported the incident, he alleges that defendant Parsal again
went to his cell door and called him a "rat[][.]" (1.9.: ,i 106). 	On January 18 , 2024,
Wilson filed another grievance (number 1071362) against defendant Parsal. 	(~
,i 109).
10
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 10 of 17

E. 	Allegations against Defendants Cress and Mohl
Duri ng an encounter with defendant Cress, Wilson expressed that he did
not want to sign off on either grievance against defendant Parsal. 	(lit at 18 ,I
110). 	He alleges that defendant Cress continued to press him and informed
Wilson that things could be worse if he did not sign off on those two grievances.
(lit ,I 111 ). On January 26, 2024, Wilson signed off on both grievances against
defendant Parsal to avoid the threat of further retaliation. 	(lit ,I 112).
On February 12 , 2024, defendant Mohl approached Wilson about signing
off on another grievance (number 1069820) against defendant Walter. (lit ,I,I
113-114 ). Due to the pressure and threat of continued harassment and
retaliation by defendant Mohl , Wilson signed off on that grievance (number
1069820). (lit ,I 114 ).
II. 	Legal Standard
A. 	Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Rule 12(b )(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the
dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
FED . R. CIv. P. 12(b)(6). When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Ru le 12(b)(6),
the court must "accept as true all [factual] allegations in the complaint and all
reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom , and view them in the light
11
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 11 of 17

most favorable to the plaintiff." 	Kanter v. Barella, 489 F.3d 170, 177 (3d Cir.
2007) (quoting Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 350 (3d Cir. 2005)). 	Although
the court is generally limited in its review to the facts contained in the complaint,
it "may also consider matters of public record , orders, exhibits attached to the
complaint and items appearing in the record of the case ." 	Oshiver v. Levin,
Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384 n. 2 (3d Cir. 1994); see also ln
re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997).
Federal notice and pleading rules require the complaint to provide "the
defendant notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."
Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 	To test the sufficiency of the
complaint in the face of a Rule 12(b )(6) motion, the court must conduct a three-
step inquiry. 	See Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 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."' ~ (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675
(2009)). Next, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated;
well-pleaded facts must be accepted as true, while mere legal conclusions may
be disregarded. 	~; see also Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11
(3d Cir. 2009). Once the well-pleaded factual allegations have been isolated , the
12
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 12 of 17

court must determine whether they are sufficient to show a "plausible claim for
relief ." 	~ 	, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556); Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555 (requiring plaintiffs to allege facts sufficient to "raise a right to relief
above the speculative level"). 	A claim "has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. " Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
B. 	42 U.S.C. Section 1983
Section 1983 is the vehicle by which private citizens may seek redress for
violations of federal constitutional rights committed by state officials. 	See 42
U.S .C. § 1983. The statute states, in pertinent part:
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 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 .
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
"Section 1983 is not a source of substantive rights, " but is merely a means
through which "to vindicate violations of federal law committed by state actors."
See Pappas v. City of Lebanon , 331 F. Supp. 2d 311 , 315 (M . D. Pa. 2004)
(quoting Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 284-85 (2002)). 	To state a cause
13
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 13 of 17

of action under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the conduct
complained of was committed by persons acting under color of state law; and (2)
the conduct violated a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or
laws of the United States. 	See Harvey v. Plains Twp. Police Dep't, 421 F.3d 185,
189 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)).
Ill. 	Discussion
In the instant motion, defendants move to dismiss the claims against Cress
and Mohl. 	(Docs. 13, 21 ). 	They argue that the complaint fails to comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. 	(Doc. 21 ). 	The court's review of the complaint
reveals that Wilson fails to provide defendants Cress and Mohl with adequate
notice of the nature of the claims against them in violation of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 establishes the general rules of pleading.
See FED. R. CIv P. 8. Rule 8(a) requires a pleading to contain "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief ." 	FED. R. CIv
P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8(d)(1) speaks to factual allegations , requiring that "[e]ach
allegation ... be simple, concise, and direct. " 	FED. R. CIv P. 8(d)(1 ). 	These rules
task the plaintiff to provide "the defendant notice of what the ... claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests ." 	Phillips, 515 F.3d at 232 (quoting Twombly, 550
14
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 14 of 17

U.S. at 555). 	This standard requires more than legal labels and conclusory
assertions: a complaint must include enough facts to "raise a right to relief above
the speculative level. " Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Wilson 's complaint fails to meet these basic pleading requirements with
respect to his claims against defendant Cress and Mohl. 	Wilson's entire
allegations against Cress and Mohl are as follows:
(110) During the encounter with Defendant Cress. 	[Wilson]
expressed that he did not want to sign off on either grievance against
Defendant Parsal.
(111) But Defendant Cress continued to press [Wilson] , and informed
[Wilson] that things could be wors[e] , if he did not sign off on those
two grievances against Defendant Parsal.
(112) So [Wilson] eventually signed off on both grievances (#1070262
and #1071362) against Defendant Parsal on 1-26-2024, due to the
threat of further retaliation from Defendant Cress , at the hands of
others.
(113) On 2-12-2024, [Wilson] was approached by Defendant [Lt.]
Mohl. 	Once again about signing off on another grievance
(#1069820).
(114) And due to the pressure and the threat of continued
harassment/retaliation by Defendant [Lt.] Mohl , [Wilson] signed off on
said grievance (#1069820) on 2-12-2024, which was against
Defendant Walter.
(Doc. 1 at 181m 110-114) (sic).
15
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 15 of 17

The allegations against defendants Cress and Mohl are too vague and
ambiguous for the defendants to be expected to respond to them because
Wilson never asserts how the conduct of Cress and Mohl impacted him.
Accordingly , the allegations against these two defendants fail to satisfy Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires Wilson to make "a short and plain
statement" showing that the alleged actions of Cress and Mohl were unlawful and
entitle him to relief. 	See Garrett v. Wexford Health , 938 F.3d 69 , 92 (3d Cir.
2019) ("Conclusory allegations of liability are insufficient [to satisfy Rule 8].").
Therefore, the claims against Cress and Mohl will be dismissed without
prejudice, and the court will grant Wilson leave to amend so that he may attempt
to cure this defect.
IV. 	Leave to Amend
Before dismissing a civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted , a district court must permit a curative amendment
unless the amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview
State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that in the absence of
undue delay, bad faith , dilatory motive, unfair prejudice, or futility of amendment,
a court should grant a plaintiff leave to amend a deficient complaint after a
defendant moves to dismiss it). " In assessing 'futility,' the district court applies
16
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 16 of 17

the same standard of legal sufficiency as [it] applies under Rule 12(b )(6) ." 	In re
Burlington Coat Factory, 114 F.3d at 1434.
The court recognizes that Wilson does not oppose dismissal of the above
claims and that he "hopes to avoid filing an Amended Complaint. " (Doc. 26).
However, in an abundance of caution , the court will grant Wilson leave to amend
his claims against defendants Cress and Mohl.
V. 	Conclusion
Consistent with the foregoing , the court will grant defendants' motion (Doc.
13) to partially dismiss the complaint. 	The claims against defendants Cress and
Mohl will be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. 	If Wilson
chooses not to file an amended complaint, the dismissal of the claims against
defendants Cress and Mohl without prejudice will convert to a dismissal with
prejudice.
An appropriate order shall issue.
Date: January i_,2026
Case 3:25-cv-00315-JKM-CA Document 27 Filed 01/08/26 Page 17 of 17