Williams v. Solomon et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RASHAWN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff
V.
BOBBI JO SOLOMON, et al.,
Defendants
CIV. ACTION NO. 3:26-CV-186
(JUDGE MANNION)
MEMORANDUM
This is a prisoner civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
For the reasons set forth below, the complaint will 	be dismissed without
prejudice, and plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, 	Rashawn Williams, 	brings the instant case pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983, alleging that defendants violated his rights by failing to protect
him from the presence of birds in Rockview State Correctional Institution.
(Doc. 1). The extent of Williams's factual allegations are as follows:
Medical Dept and unit management refused to address the issue
of several species of birds were flying 	around the block and
defecating on the block[.] I and several hundred other inmates
were living in these conditions[.] I wrote several requests and
grievances to address these matters to no relief.
(Id. at 4). Williams asserts that the presence of the birds has caused him
several illnesses and requests damages and injunctive relief requiring
Case 3:26-cv-00186-MEM-LT Document 6 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 6

"medical staff [to] be more attentive to inmates' needs." (Id. at 5). He
names as defendants Bobbi Jo Solomon, the superintendent of SCI-
Rockview, and SCI-Rockview's medical department. (Id. at 2-3).
II. 	DISCUSSION
This court must review a complaint when "a prisoner seeks redress
from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity."
28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). If a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, the court must dismiss the complaint. Id. §1915A(b)(1). The
court has a similar screeni ng obligation regarding actions filed by prisoners
proceeding 	in 	forma 	pauperis. 	Id. 	§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 	("[T]he 	court 	shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or
appeal ... fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.").
In screening legal claims under Sections 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B),
the court applies the standard governing motions to dismiss filed pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See , e.g., Coward v.
City of Philadelphia , 546 F. Supp. 3d 331 , 333 (E.D. 	Pa. 2021 ); 	Smith v.
Delaware, 236 F. Supp.3d 882, 886 (D . Del. 2017).
To 	avoid 	dismissal 	under 	Rule 	12(b)(6), 	a 	plaintiff 	must 	set 	out
"sufficient factual matter" to show that his claim is facially plausible. Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009 ). This plausibility standard requires more
2
Case 3:26-cv-00186-MEM-LT Document 6 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 6

than a mere possibility that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct.
"[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the
mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - 	but it has not
'show[n]' - 'that the pleader is entitled to relief."' Id. at 679.
When evaluating the plausibility of a complaint, the court accepts as
true all factual allegations and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn
from those allegations, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id.
However, the 	court 	must 	not 	accept 	legal 	conclusions 	as 	true, 	and 	"a
formulaic recitation of t he elements of a cause of action" will not survive a
district court's screening under Section 1915A and 1915(e)(2). Bell At/. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
Courts must liberally construe complaints brought by pro se litigants.
Sause v. Bauer, 	585 U.S. 	957, 960 (2018). Pro se complaints, "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)
(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 , 106 (1976)).
Plaintiff's claims are filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Section 1983
authorizes 	redress for violations 	of constitutional 	rights 	and 	provides 	in
relevant part:
Every 	person 	who, 	under 	color 	of 	any 	statute, 	ordinance,
regulation , custom , or usage, of any State or Territory 	...
3
Case 3:26-cv-00186-MEM-LT Document 6 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 6

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. Thus, to establish a successful claim under Section 1983,
a plaintiff must demonstrate that the challenged conduct was committed by
a person acting under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States. 	Lake 	v. 	Arnold, 112 F .3d 682, 	689 	(3d 	Cir. 1997). 	By 	its terms,
Section 1983 does not create a substantive right, 	but merely provides a
method 	for 	vindicating 	federal 	rights 	conferred 	by 	the 	United 	States
Constitution and the federal statutes that it describes. Baker v. 	McCollan,
443 U.S. 137 (1979).
In this case, Williams asserts unspecified civil rights claims against
Solomon (the superintendent of SCI-Rockview) and SCI-Rockview's medical
department. Both claims fail.
First, with 	respect to Solomon, 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 personal involvement cannot be based solely
on a theory of respondeat superior. Rode v. Del/arciprete, 845 F.2d 1195,
4
Case 3:26-cv-00186-MEM-LT Document 6 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 6

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. Id. Here, Williams does not allege any facts
with respect to Solomon other than naming her as a defendant. (Doc. 1).
Thus, 	he 	appears 	to 	name 	her 	as 	a 	defendant 	solely 	based 	on 	her
supervisory role as the prison's superintendent, which is not a sufficient basis
to allege personal involvement. Rode , 845 F.2d at 1207.
As for the claim against the medical department, Section 1983 allows
claims only against a "person" who violates the plaintiff's constitutional rights
wh i le acting under color of state law. 42 U.S.C. §1983. 	A prison medical
department is not a proper defendant to a § 1983 claim. Fischer v. Cahill, 4 74
F.2d 991 , 992 (3d Cir. 1973). The court will accordingly dismiss Williams's
claims against both defendants.
Before dismissing a civil rights claim for failure to state a claim , a district
court must pe rmit a curative amendment unless the amendment would be
inequitable or futile. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 245 (3d
Cir. 2008). With the exception of the claim against the medical department, 1
the court will grant Williams leave to file an amended complaint because it
1 As noted above, the medical department is not a proper defendant. The
claims against the department will accordingly be dismissed with prejudice.
5
Case 3:26-cv-00186-MEM-LT Document 6 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 6

cannot say as a matter of law at this stage of litigation that amendment would
be inequitable or futile.
Ill. 	CONCLUSION
For t he foregoing reasons, the court will dismiss Williams's complaint
without prejudice and grant him leave to file an 	amended complaint. 	An
appropriate order shall issue.
y E. Mannion
United States District Judge
Dated: o1(tfpr,
25-186-01
6
Case 3:26-cv-00186-MEM-LT Document 6 Filed 02/04/26 Page 6 of 6