Perez v. Harry et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHNNY PEREZ,
Plaintiff
V.
LAUREL HARRY, et al.,
Defendants
Civil No. 3:25-cv-2134
(Judge Mariani)
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Johnny Perez ("Perez "), an inmate confined at the State Correctional
Institution, Camp-Hill, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Camp Hill"), initiated this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C . § 1983. (Doc. 1). The Court previously granted Perez leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, performed its statutorily mandated screening of the original complaint, and
dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend. 	(Docs. 10, 11). Perez then filed a
proposed amended complaint. 	(Doc. 12). The amended complaint is presently before the
Court for preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) . For the following
reasons, the Court will dismiss Perez's amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1) without prejudice and grant him leave to file a second amended complaint.
I. 	Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C . § 1915A, the Court is obligated to screen a civil complaint in which
a prisoner is seeking redress from a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a
governmental entity. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); James v. Pa. Oep 'tofCorr., 230 F. App'x 195,
Case 3:25-cv-02134-RDM-CA Document 13 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 10

197 (3d Cir. 2007). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it is "frivolous , malicious , or fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[,]" or "seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 	The Court has
a similar obligation with respect to actions brought in forma pauperis and actions concerning
prison conditions. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) ; 42 U.S .C. § 1997e(c)(1).
The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28
U.S .C. § 1915A(b) , 28 U.S .C. § 1915(e)(2), or42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) is the same as that for
dismissing a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civ il Procedure .
Brodzki v. Tribune Co ., 481 F. App 'x 705, 706 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam); Mitchell v. Dodrill,
696 F. Supp . 2d 454, 471 (M.D. Pa. 2010) .
A complaint must be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) , if it
does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. " Be// At/ .
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 , 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955 , 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). 	The
plaintiff must aver "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662 , 129
S. Ct. 1937 , 1949 , 173 L. Ed . 2d 868 (2009).
"Though a complaint 'does not need detailed factual allegations, ... a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."' De/Rio-Mocci v. Connolly Prop.
Inc ., 672 F.3d 241 , 245 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at555) . In other words ,
"fac tual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the specu lative leve l. "
2
Case 3:25-cv-02134-RDM-CA Document 13 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 10

Covington v. Int '/ Ass 'n of Approved Basketball Officials, 710 F.3d 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2013)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A court "take[s] as true all the factual
allegations in the Complaint and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those
facts , but ... disregard[s] legal conclusions and threadbare recita ls of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements. " Ethypharm S.A. France v. Abbott
Laboratories , 707 F.3d 223 , 231, n.14 (3d Cir . 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks
om itted) .
Twombly and Iqbal require [a district court] to take the following three steps to
determine the sufficiency of a complaint: First, the court must take note of the elements a
pla intiff must plead to state a claim . Second , the court should identify allegations that ,
because they are no more than conclusions , are not entitled to the assumption of truth.
Finally , where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
veracity and then determine whether they plaus ibly give rise to an entitlement for relief .
Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist ., 706 F.3d 209, 212 (3d Cir . 2013).
"[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not perm it the court to infer more than the mere
possib il ity of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not show[n] - that the
pleader is entitled to relief. " Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (internal citations and quotation marks
om itted). Th is "plausibility" determination will be a "context-specific task that requires the
review ing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. " Id .
3
Case 3:25-cv-02134-RDM-CA Document 13 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 10

However , even "if a complaint is subject to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal , a district court
must permit a curative amendment unless such an amendment would be inequitable or
futile ." Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 245 (3d Cir . 2008).
Id.
[E]ven when plaintiff does not seek leave to amend his complaint after a
defendant moves to dismiss it, unless the district court finds that amendment
would be inequitable or futile, the court must inform the plaintiff that he or she
has leave to amend the complaint within a set period of time.
Because Perez proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his
complaint, "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) (citations
omitted).
II. 	The Amended Complaint
In the amended complaint, Perez names the following Defendants: the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections, Secretary Laurel Harry , Superintendent Kendell, Deputy
Superintendent Albert, Deputy Superintendent Jennifer McClelland, Major Kevin Bly, Major
Ross Miller, Corrections Classification Program Manager ("CCPM") Lacosta Mussoline ,
CCPM Erin Miller, Lieutenant Mohn, Unit Manager Dodson, Counselor Roth, Captain
Baptista, Lieutenant Smith, Captain Elwell, Lieutenant Eddon, Correctional Officer Allison,
Correctional Officer Crankfield, and Sergeant Schell. 	(Doc . 12 , at 1).
4
Case 3:25-cv-02134-RDM-CA Document 13 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 10

Perez alleges that on December 14, 2025, he was locked out of his cell and asked
Officer Crankfield to open his cell door. (Id. at 3). 	He alleges that Officer Crankfield verbally
harassed him, and that Sergeant Schell allowed Crankfield to "talk to him that way[.]" (Id.).
Perez next alleges that on December 22, 2025 , "[a]fter 8 days with no shower or
undergarments[,)" he "was taken to inventory his property" and realized that some of his
property was missing . (Id.). 	He asserts that "Defendants negligently left [his] legal and
personal property abandoned for days" and "negligently inflicted distress, suffering and
mental pain." (Id. at 4).
On December 23, 2025, Perez alleges that "a bald head" threatened him in the
Restricted Housing Unit ("RHU"). (Id. at 5).
Perez also challenges the conditions of confinement in the Restricted Housing Unit
("RHU "). (Id. at 4-5, 12-14) .
He alleges that "[t]hese events are causing [him] so much mental anguish ... making
his stress level and anxiety uncontrol[l]able." (Id. at 3) .
The remainder of Perez's complaint references the "Defendants" in general and does
not set forth any specific allegations against the named Defendants. 	(See Doc. 12).
Perez sets forth various statistics and research articles regarding placement in the
RHU, and he seeks to curtail isolation. 	(Id. at 5-12).
5
Case 3:25-cv-02134-RDM-CA Document 13 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 10

Perez asserts that Defendants violated a multitude of his rights, including a violation
of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and a violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. 	(Id. at 6, 14-15).
Perez seeks monetary relief, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief . (Id. at 15-
16) .
Ill. 	Discussion
A. 	Claims Against Secretary Laurel Harry, Superintendent Kendell, Deputy
Superintendent Albert, Deputy Superintendent Jennifer McClelland, Major
Kevin Bly, Major Ross Miller, CCPM Lacosta Mussoline, CCPM Erin Miller,
Lieutenant Mohn, Unit Manager Dodson, Counselor Roth, Captain Baptista,
Lieutenant Smith, Captain Elwell, Lieutenant Eddon, and Correctional Officer
Allison
"To state a claim under§ 1983 , a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured
by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged
deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487
U.S. 42, 48 (1988) . "A defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in
the alleged wrongs " to be liable. 	Rode v. Oel/arciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988).
Individual liability can be imposed under§ 1983 only if the state actor played an "affirmative
part" in the alleged misconduct and "cannot be predicated solely on the operation of
respondeat superior." Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Rode,
845 F.2d at 1207). Such allegations, however, must be made with appropriate particularity
in that a complaint must allege the particulars of conduct, time, place, and person
6
Case 3:25-cv-02134-RDM-CA Document 13 Filed 02/19/26 Page 6 of 10

responsible . Evancho, 423 F.3d at 354; Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207-08. Alleging a mere
hypothesis that an individual defendant had personal knowledge or involvement in depriving
the plaintiff of his rights is insufficient to establish personal involvement. 	Rode, 845 F.2d at
1208. A claim of a constitutional deprivation cannot be premised merely on the fact that the
named defendant was the prison warden , or a prison supervisor , when the incidents set
forth in the compla int occurred . Id. at 1207.
Perez has named Secretary Laurel Harry, Superintendent Kendell , Deputy
Super intendent Albert , Deputy Superintendent Jennifer McClelland , Major Kevin Bly, Major
Ross Miller , CCPM Lacosta Mussoline, CCPM Erin Miller , Lieutenant Mohn , Unit Manager
Dodson, Counselor Roth, Captain Baptista, Lieutenant Smith, Captain Elwell, Lieutenant
Eddon , and Correctional Officer Allison, as Defendants (see Doc. 12, at 1) , but he does not
mention them anywhere in the body of his complaint. 	Perez is obligated to exp lain how
each individual named as a Defendant was personally involved in the violation of his
constitutional rights , whether due to the prison official 's own misconduct or the official 's
del iberate indifference to known deficiencies in a policy or procedure that violated Perez 's
rights . See Barkes v. First Corr. Med ., Inc., 766 F.3d 307, 320 (3d Cir . 2014), reversed on
other grounds , Taylorv. Barkes , 135 S. Ct. 2042 (2015). 	Because Perez fails to mention
Secretary Laurel Harry , Superintendent Kendell , Deputy Superintendent Albert, Deputy
Superintendent Jennifer McClelland, Major Kevin Bly, Major Ross Miller, CCPM Lacosta
Mussoline , CCPM Erin Miller , Lieutenant Mohn , Unit Manager Dodson , Counselor Roth,
7
Case 3:25-cv-02134-RDM-CA Document 13 Filed 02/19/26 Page 7 of 10

Captain Baptista , Lieutenant Smith, Captain Elwell , Lieutenant Eddon , and Correctional
Officer Allison, in the body of his complaint, he has not stated a plausible basis for imposing
liability against them and any claims against them will be dismissed without prejudice. 	See
Hudson v. City of McKeesport, 244 F. App'x 519, 522 (3d Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of
defendant because complaint did not provide any basis for a claim against him) .
To the extent that Perez seeks to hold these individuals liable based on their
supervisory roles , this claim also fails . It is well-established that officials may not be held
liab le for unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat
superior. 	See Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207. Thus, Perez's claims Secretary Laurel Harry ,
Superintendent Kendell, Deputy Superintendent Albert, Deputy Superintendent Jennifer
McClelland, Major Kevin Bly , Major Ross Miller , CCPM Lacosta Mussoline , CCPM Er in
Miller , Lieutenant Mohn, Unit Manager Dodson , Counselor Roth , Captain Baptista ,
Lieutenant Smith, Captain Elwell, Lieutenant Eddon, Correctional Officer Allison, based on a
respondeat superior theory of liability are also subject to dismissal.
B. 	Claims against Correctional Officer Crankfield and Sergeant Schell
Perez alleges that Correctional Officer Crankfield verbally harassed him , and that
Sergeant Schell allowed Crankfield to "talk to him that way[.]" (Doc. 12, at 3) . "It is well
settled that verbal harassment of a prisoner, although deplorable, does not violate the
Eighth Amendment. " Robinson v. Taylor , 204 F. App'x 155 , 156 (3d Cir . 2019) . Therefore ,
a claim against Correctional Officer Crankfield based upon verbal harassment does not
8
Case 3:25-cv-02134-RDM-CA Document 13 Filed 02/19/26 Page 8 of 10

violate the Eighth Amendment and must be dismissed. 	See Washington v. Rozich, 734 F.
App'x 798, 801 (3d Cir. 2018) ("Verbal harassment of a prisoner, although distasteful , does
not violate the Eighth Amendment. ") (citations omitted).
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 inequ itab le or futile. 	Phillips, 515 F.3d at 245. 	Leave to amend may be denied
based on undue delay , bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated
failure to cure defic iencies by amendments , undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue
of allowance of the amendment, or futility of amendment. 	Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 ,
182 (1962).
The Court finds that the pleading deficiencies of Perez's amended complaint are
largely factual in nature and thus conceivably could be cured by a second amended
plead ing. Therefore, Perez will be granted one file opportunity to file a second amended
complaint to attempt to cure the defects discussed above. 1
1 	If Perez chooses to file a second amended complaint , it must be a complete document tha t
does not rely on the initia l complaint , or othe r papers filed in th is case.
9
Case 3:25-cv-02134-RDM-CA Document 13 Filed 02/19/26 Page 9 of 10

V. 	Conclusion
Consistent with the foregoing, the Court will dismiss the amended complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) without prejudice. (Doc. 12). The Court will allow
Perez a final opportunity to file a second amended complaint.
A separate Order shall issue.
Robert D. Maria •
United States District Judge
Dated: February -/4-,2026
10
Case 3:25-cv-02134-RDM-CA Document 13 Filed 02/19/26 Page 10 of 10