Williams v. Polemitis et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PARIS WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff
V.
JENNIFER POLEMITIS, et~'
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. 	(Doc. 1). 	The court previously
granted Williams 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. 6, 7). 	Williams then filed a proposed
amended complaint. 	(Doc. 11 ). 	The amended complaint is presently before the
court for preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191 SA(a).
For the following reasons, the court will dismiss the claims against
Grievance Coordinator Jennifer Polemitis, Warden Tim Betty, Deputy Warden
Jason Talutto, and Deputy Warden Colleen Orzel, and will direct service on
Correctional Officer Cadden.
Case 3:25-cv-02294-JKM-CA Document 13 Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of 8

I. 	Factual Background
On January 30, 2025, Correctional Officer Cadden allegedly pushed
Williams into a metal door, causing damage to his teeth. 	(Doc. 1, at 3-4 ).
Williams sets forth an excessive force claim against Correctional Officer Cadden .
(kl).
Williams alleges that he submitted paper grievances pertaining to this
incident. 	(kl). 	He contends that Grievance Coordinator Jennifer Polemitis failed
to acknowledge these grievances. 	(kl at 4 ).
As a result, Williams then submitted the following two electronic grievances
against Grievance Coordinator Jennifer Polemitis. 	(kl). 	On November 16, 2025,
Williams submitted grievance number 625-426-051, and, on November 19, 2025,
he submitted grievance number 626-467-431. 	(kl). 	Defendant Polemitis
allegedly deemed the grievances as "ungrievable[,]" responding that she cannot
preside over a grievance lodged against herself. 	(kl at 4-5).
Williams appealed to Deputy Warden Talutto and Deputy Warden Orzel.
(kl at 5). 	The Deputy Wardens allegedly denied the appeals and responded that
"a grievance deemed ungrievable cannot be appealed." 	(kl at 5).
Williams then submitted an appeal to the Warden, who similarly denied the
appeal, responding that "a grievance deemed ungrievable cannot be appealed."
(kl) .
2
Case 3:25-cv-02294-JKM-CA Document 13 Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 8

For relief, Williams seeks "700 million dollars" and requests that the
defendants be "held accountable and removed from their position[s], and or
imprisoned[.]" (kl 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 re li ef. 	See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in
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 fa ilure 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
A. 	Claims against Polemitis, Betty, Talutto, and Orzel
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
3
Case 3:25-cv-02294-JKM-CA Document 13 Filed 12/17/25 Page 3 of 8

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
Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280, 289 (3d Cir. 2018). 	The defendant's persona l
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. kl 	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 Grievance Coordinator Jennifer Polemitis, Warden Tim
Betty, Deputy Warden Jason Talutto, and Deputy Warden Colleen Orzel fail to
allege personal involvement. 	The only allegations against these defendants are
4
Case 3:25-cv-02294-JKM-CA Document 13 Filed 12/17/25 Page 4 of 8

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) (per 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 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 these
defendants based upon their denial of grievances and appeals is not sufficient to
5
Case 3:25-cv-02294-JKM-CA Document 13 Filed 12/17/25 Page 5 of 8

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). 	The claims against Grievance Coordinator Jennifer
Polemitis, Warden Tim Betty, Deputy Warden Jason Talutto, and Deputy Warden
Colleen Orzel will accordingly be dismissed for failure to allege personal
involvement.
B. 	Claims against Cadden
To state a claim for excessive force, a pla intiff must allege plausibly that an
official's acts resulted in "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain ." 	Whitley v.
Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320 (1986). The central question will be "whether force
was applied in a good faith effort to maintain order or restore discipline or
maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm." 	19.:. at 320-21;
see also Drumgo v. Radcliff, Sgt. , 661 F. App'x 758, 760 (3d Cir. 2016).
The court must consider several factors, including: (1) the need for the
application of force ; (2) the relationship between the need and the amount of
force used; (3) the extent of injury inflicted ; (4) the extent of the threat to the
6
Case 3:25-cv-02294-JKM-CA Document 13 Filed 12/17/25 Page 6 of 8

safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by responsible officials on
the basis of the facts known to them ; and (5) any efforts made to temper the
severity of a forceful response. 	Brooks v. Kyler, 204 F.3d 102, 106 (3d Cir.
2000).
Construing Williams' amended complaint liberally and giving him the benefit
of reasonable inferences drawn from his well-pleaded factual allegations, he
alleges that defendant Cadden pushed him into a wall "without warn i ng [, ]"
causing his face and mouth to hit a metal door and damagi ng his teeth. 	(Doc. 1,
at 4-5). At this early screening stage of the litigation , Williams has stated an
excessive force claim against defendant Cadden, and the amended complaint
will thus be permitted to proceed against Cadden. Defendant Cadden will be
directed to respond to the amended complaint.
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 inequitable or futile. 	Phillips v. Allegheny Cnty. ,
515 F. 3d 224, 245 (3d Cir. 2008). The court finds that granting Williams leave to
file a second amended complaint against Polemitis, Betty, Talutto, and Orzel
would be futile. 	The court has already granted Williams leave to amend these
cla ims, and he has failed to remedy the deficiencies of the claims. See Jones v.
7
Case 3:25-cv-02294-JKM-CA Document 13 Filed 12/17/25 Page 7 of 8

Unknown D.O.C. Bus Driver & Transp. Crew, 944 F.3d 478, 483 (3d Ci r. 2019)
(when prisoner plaintiff "has already had two chances to tell his story ... giving him
further leave to amend would be futile").
V. 	Conclusion
Consistent with the foregoing , the court wi ll dismiss the claims against
Grievance Coordinator Jennifer Polemitis, Warden Tim Betty, Deputy Warden
Jason Talutto , and Deputy Warden Colleen Orzel for failure to state a cla im in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court will direct service of the
amended complaint on Correctional Officer Cadden .
An appropriate order shall issue.
Date:December J1_,2025
8
Case 3:25-cv-02294-JKM-CA Document 13 Filed 12/17/25 Page 8 of 8