Williams v. Polemitis et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PARIS WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff
v.
JENNIFER POLEMITIS, et al.,
Defendants
No. 3:25cv2294
(Judge Munley)
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Paris Williams ("Williams"), an inmate currently housed at the
Lackawanna County Prison, in Scranton, Pennsylvania, commenced this pro se
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Williams seeks to proceed in
forma pauperis. 	(Doc. 2).
The complaint is presently before the court for preliminary screening. For
the reasons set forth below, the court will grant the motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),
with leave to amend.
I. 	Factual Background
In the complaint, Williams names the following defendants at the
Lackawanna County Prison: Grievance Coordinator Jennifer Polemitis, Warden
Case 3:25-cv-02294-JKM-CA Document 6 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 6

Tim Betty, Deputy Warden Jason Talutto, and Deputy Warden Colleen Orzel.
(Doc. 1, at 2-3).
Will iams alleges that, on November 16 and 19 , 2025, he submitted
grievance numbers 625-426-051 and 626-467-431 , respectively, against
Grievance Coordinator Jennifer Polemitis. 	(~ at 3-4 ). 	Defendant Polemitis
allegedly deemed the grievances as "ungrievable[,]" responding that she cannot
preside over a grievance lodged against he rself. 	(~ at 4 ).
Williams appealed to Deputy Warden Talutto and Deputy Warden Orzel.
(19..: at 4-5). The Deputy Wardens allegedly denied the appeals and responded
that "a grievance deemed ungrievable cannot be appealed. " 	(~) .
Williams then submitted an appeal to the Warden , who similarly denied the
appeal, responding that "a grievance deemed ungrievable cannot be appealed ."
(~ at 5) .
For relief, Williams seeks '" 700 Million ' dollars" and requests that the
defendants be "held accountable and removed from their position[s][.]" (~ at 4 ).
II. 	Legal Standard
The court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain in forma
pauperis and prisoner actions that are frivolous , malicious, fail to state a claim , or
seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in
2
Case 3:25-cv-02294-JKM-CA Document 6 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 6

which prisoner seeks redress from a governmental defendant); 42 U.S.C. §
1997e (prisoner actions brought with respect to prison conditions).
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), or 42 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 Civil 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).
Ill. 	Discussion
Williams brings his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Section 1983 creates a
private 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)).
A defendant cannot be liable for a violation of a plaintiff's civil rights unless
the defendant was personally involved in the violation. 	Jutrowski v. Twp. of
3
Case 3:25-cv-02294-JKM-CA Document 6 Filed 12/03/25 Page 3 of 6

Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280, 289 (3d Cir. 2018). 	The defendant's personal
involvement cannot be based solely on a theory of respondeat superior. Rode v.
Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). Rather, for a supervisor to be
liable for the actions of a subordinate, there must be allegations of personal
direction or actual knowledge and acquiescence. 	1ft. A defendant's review and
denial of a prisoner's grievance is not sufficient to establish the defendant's
personal involvement in an underlying violation of the prisoner's constitutional
rights . Dooley v. Wetzel , 957 F.3d 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2020).
The claims against the defendants fail to allege personal involvement. 	The
only allegations against the defendants are that they denied Williams' grievances
and appeals. Inmates do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance
procedures. 	See Jackson v. Gordon, 145 F. App'x 774, 777 (3d Cir. 2005) (Qfil
curiam) (explaining that "prison inmates do not have a constitutionally protected
right to a grievance process" ). 	The filing of a grievance, participation in "after-
the-fact" review of a grievance, or dissatisfaction with the response to an
inmate's grievance, do not establish the involvement of officials and
administrators in any underlying constitutional deprivation. See Rode, 845 F.2d
at 1207 (supervisory liability where a defendant, after being informed of the
violation through the filing of grievances, reports or appeals , failed to take action
to remedy the alleged wrong is not enough to show that the defendant has the
4
Case 3:25-cv-02294-JKM-CA Document 6 Filed 12/03/25 Page 4 of 6

necessary personal involvement); Pressley v. Beard, 266 F. App'x 216, 218 (3d
Cir. 2008) ("The District Court properly dismissed these defendants and any
additional defendants who were sued based on their failure to take corrective
action when grievances or investigations were referred to them ." ); Brooks v.
Beard , 167 F. App'x 923 , 925 (3d Cir. 2006) (holding that allegations that prison
officials responded inappropriately to inmate's later-filed grievances do not
establish the personal involvement of those officials and administrators in the
underlying constitutional deprivation). 	Thus , Williams' attempt to establish
liability against the defendants based upon their denial of grievances and
appeals is not sufficient to establish the defendants' personal involvement in an
underlying civil rights violation. 	See Simonton v. Tennis, 437 F. App'x 60, 62 (3d
Cir. 2011) (nonprecedential) ("[A] prison official's secondary review of an
inmate's grievance or appeal is not sufficient to demonstrate the personal
involvement required to establish the deprivation of a constitutional right. ");
Alexander v. Gennarini , 144 F. App'x 924, 925 (3d Cir. 2005) (involvement in
post-incident grievance process not a basis for liability). 	These claims will
accordingly be dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement.
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
5
Case 3:25-cv-02294-JKM-CA Document 6 Filed 12/03/25 Page 5 of 6

unless the amendment would be inequitable or futile. 	Phillips v. Allegheny Cnty.,
515 F.3d 224, 245 (3d Cir. 2008). 	The court will grant leave to amend because
the claims are largely factually deficient.
V. 	Conclusion
Consistent with the foregoing , the court will dismiss the complaint for failure
to state a claim in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and grant
Williams leave to file an amended complaint.
An appropriate order shall issue.
Date: December ~ 	' 2025
6
Case 3:25-cv-02294-JKM-CA Document 6 Filed 12/03/25 Page 6 of 6