JACKSON v. VOGUS et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM P. JACKSON, 	:
Plaintiff 	:
v. 	: Case No. 1:25-cv-184-RJC-KAP
MR. VOGUS, et al., 	:
Defendants 	:
Supplemental Report and Recommendation
Recommendation
I previously recommended that plaintiff Jackson’s complaint should be dismissed
for failure to state a claim as to all defendants and claims except for a deliberate
indifference 	claim 	against 	defendant 	Vogus. 	I 	supplement 	my 	report 	but 	the
recommendation remains the same.
Report
Plaintiff Jackson is a frequent filer of complaints subject to the Prison Litigation
Reform Act. When he was at S.C.I. Albion he filed a complaint against four DOC
employees there, 1) two corrections officer who referred his complaint about bottom bunk
status to the unit manager, defendant Vogus; 2) defendant Vogus himself; and 3) another
unit manager, defendant Edwards. I failed to address separately the claim against
Edwards because it was not apparent to me that there was any claim intended against
Edwards. Jackson’s objections make it clear that the basis for naming Edwards is that the
medical department charges copays and because Jackson is not satisfied with the results
of his medical care, Jackson believes that Edwards is personally liable to him for the
amount of the copays.
Jackson’s theory that medical care is “satisfaction guaranteed or it’s free” would be
so novel (because no such claim exists in the world outside prison except for possibly the
breach of contract hypothetical considered in the movie version of The Paper Chase) that
Edwards would be protected from liability by qualified immunity. If Jackson could state
a claim then he and other inmates would necessarily also have access to federal court for
every post-consumption dissatisfaction with the quality or price of items purchased at the
commissary. A legal principle that commands absurdities is prima facie not a valid one.
But Jackson’s claim against Edwards is expressly foreclosed by a uniform line of
cases, see Tillman v. Lebanon County Correctional Facility, 221 F.3d 410, 421 (3d
Cir.2000), McCabe v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 523 Fed.Appx. 858, 861
(3d Cir.2013); see also Gardner v. Wilson, 959 F. Supp. 1224, 1229 (C.D. Cal. 1997) that
Case 1:25-cv-00184-RJC-KAP Document 12 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 2

2
hold a claim only exists when the state fails to provide meaningful post-deprivation
remedies. Jackson did not allege that no post-deprivation remedy exists and given the
existence of an adequate post-deprivation remedy provided by the Department of
Corrections’ grievance process Jackson cannot allege that.
Jackson’s “Motion to Appeal” at ECF no. 9 can be terminated as a housekeeping
matter. No motion is needed: the pleading is simply an objection to my original report
and can be considered with the objections at ECF no. 10.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), the plaintiff can within fourteen days file
additional written objections to my supplemental report. In the absence of timely and
specific objections, any appeal would be severely hampered or entirely defaulted. 	See
EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of
appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for
plain error).
DATE: November 4, 2025
Keith A. Pesto,
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice by U.S. Mail to:
William P. Jackson QQ-2364
S.C.I. Laurel Highlands
5706 Glades Pike
P.O. Box 631
Somerset, PA 15501
Case 1:25-cv-00184-RJC-KAP Document 12 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 2