CAREY v. SANTOS et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHNF. CAREY ,
Plaintiff
V.
SCI ALBION , et al. ,
Defendants
ERIE DIVISION
)
) 	1:25-CV-0069-SPB-RAL
)
) 	SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
) 	United States District Judge
)
) 	RICHARD A. LANZILLO
) 	Chief United States Magistrate Judge
)
) 	REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
)
)
MAGISTRATE WDGE ' S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Recommendation
It is recommended that Plaintiff John F. Carey ' s claims against Defendant SCI Albion be
dismissed for failure to state a claim in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
II. 	Report
A. Background
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at SCI Albion, commenced this action by filing a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against SCI Albion, Unit Manager S. Santos, Block
Counselor T. Tharp, and CCPM Steven Soliwoda. 	ECF No. 1-2. 	Plaintiff lodged an amended
complaint on May 27, 2025. ECF No. 9-1. His motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is
pending. See ECF No. 1.
In his proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Santos, Tharp, and Soliwoda have
displayed deliberate indifference to his serious mental health needs by denying him participation
in mental health treatment groups. 	ECF No. 9-1 at p. 5. Plaintiff maintains that he suffers from
Case 1:25-cv-00069-SPB-RAL Document 13 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 3

Schizophrenia, Major Depressive Order, and PTSD and that without access to treatment groups
his symptoms become unmanageable. Id.
B. Standard for review
Because he is seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 1, Plaintiff is subject
to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 1 Among other things, that statute requires the
Court to dismiss any action in which the Court determines that the action is "frivolous or malicious;
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S .C. § 1915(e)(2); Muchler v. Greenwald, 624 Fed. Appx.
794, 796-97 (3d Cir. 2015). 	A frivolous complaint is one which is either based upon an
indisputably meritless legal theory (such as when a defendant enjoys immunity from suit) or based
upon factual contentions which are clearly baseless (such as when the factual scenario described
is fanciful or delusional). Neitz ke v. Williams, 490 U. S. 319, 327 (1989). The determination as to
whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is governed by the
same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. D 'Agostino v. CECOM RDEC, 436 Fed. Appx. 70, 72 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Tourscher
v. McCullough , 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999)).
C. 	Analysis
Applying the principles above, the Court must screen and dismiss Plaintiffs claim against
SCI Albion. As the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has repeatedly noted, a prison or prison
department is not a "person" that can be sued under§ 1983. See, e.g. , Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 Fed.
1 Because Plaintiff is proceeding pr ose, his allegations, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to " less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by la wyers." Hain es v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-5 2 1 (1972). Moreover,
under the liberal pleading rules, during the initial stages of litigation, a district court should construe all allegations
in a complaint in favor of the complainant. Gibbs v. Roman, I I 6 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 1997).
2
Case 1:25-cv-00069-SPB-RAL Document 13 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 3

Appx. 32, 34 (3d Cir. 2021) ("Gerholt similarly failed to state a claim against the SCI-Phoenix
Medical Department because a prison medical department is not a 'person' that can be sued under
§ 1983"); Fischer v. Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir. 1974) (a state agency, such as a prison
department, "may not be sued under§ 1983 since it is not a person"); Jones v. Erie County Prison,
2022 WL 3236939, at * 1 (W.D. Pa. July 11, 2022) (noting that "a prison or correctional facility .
. . is not a 'person' that is subject to suit under federal civil rights laws") (internal quotations and
quoting source omitted). Dismissal is warranted.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that SCI Albion be terminated
as a Defendant in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e). The Court will independently direct
service on the remaining Defendants by separate order.
IV. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(l ) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties must seek review
by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14)
days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the Objections shall
have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the Objections to respond thereto. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Extensions of time will not be granted. Failure to file timely objections
may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d
Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F .3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).
Dated this 25th day of November, 2025.
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
3
Case 1:25-cv-00069-SPB-RAL Document 13 Filed 11/25/25 Page 3 of 3