Simmons v. Frantz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NYESHA LASHAE SIMMONS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAM
FRANTZ,
et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-cv-02867
(SAPORITO, J.)
MEMORANDUM
Nyesha Lashae Simmons, a prisoner at SCI-Muncy proceeding
pro
se, asserts a variety of claims against five defendants affiliated with the
prison. (Doc. 1). For the following reasons, Simmons will be directed to
file an amended complaint, or the case will proceed only on a small subset
of her claims.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Simmons brings this complaint against the Superintendent of SCI-
Muncy (William Frantz) and four correctional officers at the prison
(“Michaelwitz,” K. Engel, M. Goodson, and T. McMillan). Although her
description of these events is vague, we have liberally construed her
allegations as required of a
pro se complaint.
See Estelle v. Gamble, 429
Case 3:26-cv-02867-JFS-SA Document 8 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 9

- 2 -
U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
Simmons alleges that during a three-week period in January 2025,
the four correctional officers “repeatedly raped [her] . . . while medical
staff failed to intervene.” She alleges that she suffered miscarriages in
January 2025 and March 2025; although she describes the officers as
having raped her “[b]y anal penetration,” we understand her to allege
that she suffered these miscarriages as a result.
See (Doc. 1 at 4). She
alleges that when she suffered the miscarriages, she received no “medical
monitoring or hospitalization [after] telling staff in the MHU1.” She also
alleges that these conditions were imposed on her in retaliation for (1)
filing a prison grievance after she was denied parole in July 2024, and (2)
filing a PREA complaint against another inmate in October 2024.
Simmons asserts a variety of claims, including Eighth Amendment
claims of cruel and unusual punishment; “discrimination of a mental
health prisoner”; “failure to intervene” by unnamed medical staff; “sexual
1 We infer that the abbreviation “MHU” refers to a Mental Health
Unit.
See generally DOC Policy Statement 13.8.1. Simmons generally
alleges that these events took place in the prison infirmary, but she also
claims that at some unspecified time, her “body was moved to a different
location of the facility.”
Case 3:26-cv-02867-JFS-SA Document 8 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 9

- 3 -
assault, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress”;
retaliation for “using the grievance process” and “filing PREA against a
peer”; 	and 	“violation 	of 	my 	human 	basic 	rights 	of 	the 	[Ninth]
Amendment.”
II. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is obligated to screen a civil
complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity
or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a);
James v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 230 Fed. App’x 195, 197 (3d Cir. 2007). The
Court must dismiss the complaint if it is “frivolous” or “fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 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)(i);
	id. 	§ 	1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1997e(c)(1);
	see
generally Banks v. Cty. of Allegheny, 568 F. Supp. 2d 579, 587-89 (W.D.
Pa. 2008) (summarizing screening procedures and standards).
The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a
claim under § 1915A(b)(1), § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), or § 1997e(c) is the same as
that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Case 3:26-cv-02867-JFS-SA Document 8 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 9

- 4 -
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Brodzki v. Tribune Co., 481 Fed. App’x 705, 706
(3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam);
Mitchell v. Dodrill, 696 F. Supp. 2d 454, 471
(M.D. Pa. 2010);
Banks, 568 F. Supp. 2d at 588. “Under Rule 12(b)(6), a
motion to dismiss may be granted only if, accepting all well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, a court finds the plaintiff ’s claims lack facial
plausibility.”
Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir.
2011) (citing
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)).
In deciding the motion, the Court may consider the facts alleged on the
face of the complaint, as well as “documents incorporated into the
complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial
notice.”
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322
(2007). Although the Court must accept the fact allegations in the
complaint as true, it is not compelled to accept “unsupported conclusions
and unwarranted inferences, or a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.”
Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 165 (3d Cir. 2013).
Simmons is pursuing constitutional claims that would fall under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or
Case 3:26-cv-02867-JFS-SA Document 8 Filed 10/16/26 Page 4 of 9

- 5 -
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. To establish a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must
establish that the defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived
the plaintiff of a right secured by the United States Constitution.
Mark
v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141 (3d Cir. 1995). To avoid
dismissal for failure to state a claim, a civil rights complaint must state
the 	conduct, 	time, 	place, 	and 	persons 	responsible 	for 	the 	alleged
violations.
Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2005). Further,
“[c]ivil rights claims cannot be premised on a theory of
	respondeat
superior. Rather, each named defendant must be shown . . . to have been
personally involved in the events or occurrences which underlie a claim.”
Millbrook v. United States, 8 F. Supp. 3d 601, 613 (M.D. Pa. 2014)
(citation omitted). As explained by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals:
A defendant in a civil rights action must have personal
involvement 	in 	the 	alleged 	wrongs . . . . 	[P]ersonal
involvement 	can 	be 	shown 	through 	allegations 	of
personal 	direction 	or 	of 	actual 	knowledge 	and
acquiescence. 	Allegations 	of 	participation 	or 	actual
knowledge and acquiescence, however, must be made
Case 3:26-cv-02867-JFS-SA Document 8 Filed 10/16/26 Page 5 of 9

- 6 -
with appropriate particularity.
Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Simmons plausibly alleges Eighth Amendment claims, and state
law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, against the four
correctional officers based on the alleged sexual assaults. However, while
the 	events 	Simmons 	describes 	are 	abhorrent, 	her 	complaint 	lacks
sufficient detail to sustain her remaining claims. She will have 30 days
to file an amended complaint or these remaining claims will be dismissed.
While 	Simmons generally 	alleges that 	medical staff “failed to
intervene” while she was being raped, and denied her medical care after
her miscarriages, she has not named any member of the medical staff as
a defendant. On these facts, Superintendent Frantz is not a viable
defendant 	for 	these 	claims.
	See 	Rode, 	845 	F.2d 	at 	1207 	(personal
involvement in a constitutional violation requires “participation or actual
knowledge 	and 	acquiescence”). 	The 	vague 	allegation 	that 	Simmons
“[told] staff in the MHU” about her medical needs is insufficient, because
she has not alleged that any of the named defendants were in the MHU,
has not explained what she told “staff,” and has not explained how these
Case 3:26-cv-02867-JFS-SA Document 8 Filed 10/16/26 Page 6 of 9

- 7 -
non-medical officials stopped her from seeking medical care. To proceed
on this type of claim, it is not enough to say that she was denied care;
Simmons must allege specific facts showing how each defendant knew
about her medical needs and why their actions or inactions reflected
deliberate indifference to those needs.
See Durham v. Kelley, 82 F.4th
217, 229 (3d Cir. 2023).
Simmons brings unspecified claims premised on “discrimination of
a mental health prisoner”; however, the fact that she was receiving
mental 	health 	care 	during 	this 	time 	does 	not 	itself 	suggest
discrimination. Regardless of the intended legal theory, a plaintiff cannot
state a claim by vaguely labelling a defendant’s actions as discriminatory.
See,
e.g.,
Moore v. Filer, No. 3:22-CV-2073, 2024 WL 264679, at *5 (M.D.
Pa. Jan. 24, 2024);
Roman v. Little, No. 19-CV-5204, 2019 WL 6528770,
at *4-5 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2019).
Similarly, there is no plausible basis to infer that defendants were
retaliating against Simmons for filing a grievance or a PREA complaint.
For a First Amendment retaliation claim, the plaintiff ’s complaint must
support an inference that the prison grievance or complaint was a
“substantial or motivating factor” in the official’s decision to take adverse
Case 3:26-cv-02867-JFS-SA Document 8 Filed 10/16/26 Page 7 of 9

- 8 -
action against her.
See Wisniewski v. Fisher, 857 F.3d 152, 156 (3d Cir.
2017). Simmons claims the events of January 2025 were retaliation for a
grievance from July 2024; however, that grievance has no apparent
connection to these defendants, and there is no indication that they were
even aware of it.2 The same is true of Simmons’s PREA complaint; she
offers no plausible explanation why her complaint about another inmate
would motivate prison officers to sexually assault her several months
later. Without facts that explain these claims, Simmons’s own belief that
she was the victim of retaliation is insufficient.
See,
e.g.,
Smith v. Price,
No. 3:11-CV-1581, 2012 WL 6541008, at *17 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2012)
(plaintiff ’s “subjective sensitivity” to retaliation based on “events . . .
separated in time from one another by months [that] entail disparate acts
by different actors” did not support a plausible claim).
Finally, Simmons asserts a violation of her “basic rights” under the
Ninth Amendment, but it is unclear how the Ninth Amendment applies
2 In the July 2024 grievance, Simmons primarily complained about
the fact that the DOC did not recommend her for parole. She was denied
parole in part because of a “lengthy + excessive misconduct history,”
which she attributed to “the neglect of staff securing [her] from sexual
harassment.” Regardless, none of these defendants were named in the
grievance, and she does not allege that they were involved in the DOC’s
parole recommendation.
See (Doc. 1-1 at 13-14).
Case 3:26-cv-02867-JFS-SA Document 8 Filed 10/16/26 Page 8 of 9

- 9 -
to this case.
See Hall v. Wahl, No. 3:24-CV-226, 2025 WL 439823, at *8
(M.D. Pa. Feb. 7, 2025) (“The Ninth Amendment does not independently
establish any constitutional right for the purpose of pursuing a civil
rights 	action 	. 	. 	. 	As 	such, 	courts 	have 	generally 	rejected 	Ninth
Amendment claims raised by prisoners based on complaints about prison
conditions.”) (quotations and citations omitted). This claim is subject to
dismissal unless it is further developed in the amended complaint.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons described above, we grant Simmons 30 days to file
an amended complaint. Any amended complaint must incorporate all her
proposed 	claims 	and 	provide 	specific 	facts 	that 	explain 	why 	each
defendant is liable to her. She may attach prison records or other
documents if they are helpful in explaining her claims. If she does not file
an 	amended 	complaint, 	the 	case 	will 	proceed 	only 	on 	her 	Eighth
Amendment claims of sexual assault and state law claims of intentional
infliction of emotional distress against the four correctional officers. An
appropriate order follows.
Dated: October 16, 2026
	s/Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-02867-JFS-SA Document 8 Filed 10/16/26 Page 9 of 9