Swint v. United States Penitentiary at Allenwood

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NATHANIEL SWINT,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 1:23-CV-01107
Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment filed by
Defendant. (Doc. 36.) Plaintiff’s response included an affidavit filed pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. 56(d) seeking additional discovery. (Docs. 43, 44-2.) The court
agrees that additional discovery is needed in this action. Therefore, it will deny the
pending motion without prejudice and order Defendant to file an answer to the
operative complaint.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL H ISTORY
On June 26, 2023, Plaintiff a filed a civil complaint referencing both a claim
pursuant to Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and the Eighth Amendment for the
failure to properly treat his spinal disorder while he was incarcerated at the United
States Penitentiary Allenwood (“USP-Allenwood”). (Doc. 2.) He named USP-
Allenwood as the sole defendant. (Id.) The court forwarded Plaintiff an
administrative order informing him of the need to pay the full filing fee or
Case 1:23-cv-01107-JPW-EW Document 46 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 6

2
complete an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff then
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 8.) On July 24, 2023, the
court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and screened
Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (Doc. 9.) The
court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because USP-Allenwood was
not a proper defendant in an FTCA action or a Bivens action. (Id.)
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 21, 2023. (Doc. 12.) This
complaint was essentially identical, except that in the “Submit to Appropriate
Federal Agency” box of the Standard Form 95, he listed the “United States of
America – Warden at USP Allenwood, PA FBOP-United States Penitentiary at
Allenwood.” (Doc. 12, p. 2.) 1 The court liberally construed this filing and found
that it appeared that Plaintiff intended to name three defendants in the amended
complaint: (1) the United States of America (“United States”); (2) the Warden at
USP-Allenwood; and (3) the BOP. The court screened the amended complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (Doc. 13.) The court dismissed the
complaint with leave to amend because Plaintiff failed to state a claim for which
relief may be granted. (Doc. 13.) The court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second
amended complaint. (Id.)
1 For ease of reference, the court utilizes the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.
Case 1:23-cv-01107-JPW-EW Document 46 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on October 16, 2023. (Doc. 16.)
However, this document was unsigned and was returned to Plaintiff for his
signature as a result. (Doc. 19.) This document was refiled on December 12,
2023. (Doc. 20.) On December 14, 2023, the court dismissed the second amended
complaint for failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), finding further leave to amend the complaint would be
futile, and closing the case. (Doc. 21.) Defendants in this action were never
served.
On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the
court’s December 14, 2023 order. (Doc. 22.) On February 8, 2024, the court
deemed the motion for reconsideration as withdrawn because Plaintiff failed to file
a brief in support of the motion. (Doc. 23.) On February 23, 2024, the court
received and docketed Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an out of time brief in
support of Plaintiff’ motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 24.) Attached to the motion
was Plaintiff’s proposed brief in support of the Plaintiff’ motion for
reconsideration. (Doc. 24-1.)
On June 13, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an out
of time brief, vacated the court’s February 8, 2024 order, and then denied the
motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 26.) Plaintiff then appealed the court’s decision
to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 27.) The Third Circuit Court of
Case 1:23-cv-01107-JPW-EW Document 46 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Appeals affirmed this court’s dismissal of the Bivens claim, vacated this court’s
dismissal of the FTCA claim for medical malpractice, and remanded the case to
this court for further proceedings. (Docs. 30, 30-1, 31.)
On May 12, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or a motion for
summary judgment along with a brief in support and a statement of facts. (Docs.
36, 40, 41.) On May 28, 2025, the court entered an order finding that Defendant
had submitted matters for consideration outside the pleadings and converting the
motion to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. (Doc.
42.)
On June 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition and an answer to the
statement of facts. (Docs. 43, 44.) Included with the brief in opposition, Plaintiff
filed an affidavit in accord with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). (Doc. 44-2.) On July 1,
2025, Defendant filed a reply brief. (Doc. 45.)
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is premised on the argument that
BOP staff relied on the opinion of Dr. Martin from May of 2009 that “a few small
metallic bullet fragments anteriorly in the right front region that could be within
the brain. An MRI is not recommended because of the possible location of these
fragments in the brain tissue.” (Doc. 41, p. 9.) Defendant argues that Dr. Martin is
the individual who committed negligence and that she is a non-BOP medical
Case 1:23-cv-01107-JPW-EW Document 46 Filed 03/09/26 Page 4 of 6

5
provider. (Id.) By isolating Dr. Martin as the source of the negligence, Defendant
argues that as a non-BOP medical provider, no liability for the negligence can be
attributed to the BOP. (Id.)
As mentioned above, when Defendant sought summary judgment on the
FTCA claim, Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition asserting that not all the facts are
available to him, namely that all documents concerning Dr. Martin’s relationship
with the BOP are in the possession of Defendant and were not made available to
Plaintiff. (Doc. 43, p. 7.) He then attached a declaration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(d). (Doc. 44-2.) Such a declaration is the proper recourse of a party faced
with a motion for summary judgment who believes that additional discovery is
necessary before he can adequately respond to that motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d);
Doe v. Abington Friends School, 480 F.3d 252, 257 (3d Cir. 2007). “District
courts usually grant properly filed Rule 56(f) motions as a matter of course. This
is particularly so when there are discovery requests outstanding or relevant facts
are under the control of the moving party.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 was amended in 2010, and Rule 56(f)
became Rule 56(d).
Under Rule 56(d), the court can “(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;
(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; (3) or issue
any other appropriate order.” Since Defendant’s action began with a motion to
Case 1:23-cv-01107-JPW-EW Document 46 Filed 03/09/26 Page 5 of 6

6
dismiss that the court converted into a motion for summary judgment, the court
will deny the pending motion without prejudice, order Defendant to answer the
operative complaint, and allow the parties to complete discovery.
CONCLUSION
For the above-stated reasons, the court will deny the pending motion for
summary judgment without prejudice and order Defendant to answer the operative
complaint in this matter.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: March 9, 2026
Case 1:23-cv-01107-JPW-EW Document 46 Filed 03/09/26 Page 6 of 6