Stevens v. Andrews et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 3:25-cv-01878-JKM-MP Document16- Filed 02/19/26 Pagelof/7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DATHAN STEVENS, No. 3:25-CV-1878
Plaintiff
(Judge Munley)
Vi

CAPTAIN ANDREWS, et al.,
Defendants

Poe eee eee eee eee ee eee eee ee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee ey
See

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Dathan Stevens initiated the above-captioned pro se action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983,' alleging that numerous officials at the State Correctional
Institution, Rockview (SCI Rockview), infringed his constitutional rights. Upon
review as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the court finds that many claims
and defendants are improperly joined. Stevens, therefore, will be given the
option of voluntary dismissal or severance.
I. BACKGROUND

During all times relevant to his complaint, Stevens was confined at SC]

Rockview. (See generally Doc. 1). He is currently incarcerated at SCI Coal

Township. (See Doc. 10).

1 Section 1983 creates a private cause of action to redress constitutional wrongs committed by
state officials. The statute is not a source of substantive rights; it serves as a mechanism for
vindicating rights otherwise protected by federal law. See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273,
284-85 (2002).

Case 3:25-cv-01878-JKM-MP Document16 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2of7

Stevens’ complaint is overly lengthy and difficult to follow. He structures
his complaint in the following unique manner. First, he provides a handwritten
page specifically targeting one of the many named defendants. (See Doc. 1 at 8,
10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46). Then,
he follows that handwritten page with a typewritten page that contains general
allegations that he was unfairly targeted for a cell search and then placed ina
“dry cell’* in January 2024. (See Doc. 1 at 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27,
29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47). That general, typewritten page—which
appears twenty times—changes only by the name of the defendant Stevens
inserts into a blank space near the bottom of the page, changing the name to
reflect the defendant discussed in the handwritten page preceding it. (See id.).

Confusingly, however, Stevens’ handwritten allegations do not just involve
the January 2024 cell search and dry cell placement. Rather, they concern many
different types of claims and incidents, including cell searches and dry cell

placement on different dates (May 2023 and September 2024), purportedly

2 “A ‘dry cell is a cell that lacks water—all standing water has been drained from the toilet, the
room’s water supply has been shut off, and the sink and toilet have been capped to prevent
inmate access. An inmate may be placed in a dry cell when prison staff have observed the
inmate attempt to ingest an item of contraband or they learn that the inmate is attempting to
introduce contraband into the prison. Dry cells are used to closely observe the inmate until
natural processes allow for the ingested contraband to be retrieved. To this end, dry cells lack
all linens and moveable items other than a mattress, inmates’ clothes are exchanged for a
simple smock, and their movements are carefully controlled to prevent them from concealing
or disposing of any retrievable contraband.” Thomas v. Tice, 948 F.3d 133, 137 (3d Cir. 2020).

2

Case 3:25-cv-01878-JKM-MP Document16 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3of/7

deficient mental health care, alleged excessive force, Prison Rape Elimination
Act (PREA) violations and reporting, failure to address Stevens’ complaints and
grievances, and failure to protect against unspecified retaliation. (See id. at 8,
10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46).

Stevens sues the following eighteen defendants: Captain Andrews,
Lieutenant Wooster, Lieutenant Butler, Lieutenant Stover, Lieutenant Sherman,
Lieutenant Flaherty, Major Vangordon, Superintendent B. Soloman, Deputy
Superintendent Rowe, Deputy Superintendent Woodring, C.O. Sharrow, C.O.
Miller, C.O. Bush, C.O. Mulfler, Lieutenant Walker, Counselor Hoover, Sergeant
Ace, and Sergeant Bickle. (See id. at 2-4). He additionally includes allegations
against Unit Manager Clark and C.O. Pollock, (see id. at 44, 46), but he does not
name these prison officials as defendants. He seeks compensatory and punitive
damages. (ld. at 6).
ll. DISCUSSION

The court has thoroughly reviewed Stevens’ lengthy complaint. As best as
the court can discern, he is attempting to assert at least six different types of
Section 1983 claims: (1) Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement related to
his cell searches and placement in a dry cell on several occasions; (2) Eighth

Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; (3) Eighth

Amendment excessive force; (4) Eighth Amendment PREA-related issues,

Case 3:25-cv-01878-JKM-MP Document16- Filed 02/19/26 Page4of/7

including sexual abuse; (5) Eighth Amendment failure to protect from unspecified
retaliation; and (6) First Amendment Petition Clause violations for failure to
respond to complaints or grievances.

The primary problem with Stevens’ complaint, at least at this early stage of
the litigation, is that he is attempting to join multiple unrelated claims against
different defendants in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2). As
reflected above, Stevens’ complaint primarily concerns what he believes to be
Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement violations regarding his cell
searches and dry cell placements. His claims against Andrews, Sherman,
Soloman, Walker, Bickle, Mulfler, Wooster, Stover, Butler, and Bush are
therefore properly joined together in the same lawsuit, as they concern the same
“series of transactions or occurrences” and contain a “question of law” that is
common to all these defendants. See FED. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (discussing
requirements for permissive joinder of defendants).

Additionally, when the court liberally construes Stevens’ complaint, his
claims against Miller, Woodring, and Hoover could also be considered properly
joined. Stevens alleges that these defendants “neglected” or failed to respond to
unspecified complaints and grievances, which complaints and grievances could

relate to his cell searches and dry cell placements. (See id. at 16, 18, 42).

Case 3:25-cv-01878-JKM-MP Document16- Filed 02/19/26 Page5of/7

Stevens’ other Section 1983 claims against different defendants are not
properly joined. His claims against Rowe and Ace sound in deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs regarding their treatment of his alleged
mental health issues. (See Doc. 1 at 10, 34). His claim against Sharrow alleges
excessive force by throwing bars of soap at Stevens in his cell. (See id. at 12).
His claims against Flaherty and Pollock concern sexual abuse and the handling
(or mishandling) of a PREA complaint. (See id. at 14, 46). And his claims
against Vangordon and Clark allege Eighth Amendment failure to protect from
unspecified retaliation. (See id. at 40, 44).

These unrelated claims against different defendants do not provide a basis
for permissive joinder. They are not part of the “same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions or occurrences” underlying his claims related to his
conditions of confinement at SCI Rockview, nor is there a “question of law or fact
common to all defendants” such that these claims and defendants could be
permissively joined in this action. See FED. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).

Stevens, of course, is free to file separate lawsuits based on these
unrelated Section 1983 allegations, although the court notes that he would be

required to pay the filing fee for each separate case. See id.; George v. Smith,

507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (explaining that “[uJnrelated claims against

different defendants belong in different suits” not only to prevent confusion but

Case 3:25-cv-01878-JKM-MP Document16- Filed 02/19/26 Page 6of/7

also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees under the PLRA);

Redding v. Bilinski, No. 3:15-cv-1047, 2015 WL 3710842, at *1-2 (M.D. Pa. June

12, 2015) (same).

Accordingly, the court will give Stevens the following options: he can either
(1) voluntarily dismiss (with or without prejudice) his claims aoainet Rowe, Ace,
Sharrow, Flaherty, Pollock, Vangordon, and Clark from this action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i); (2) request severance of this
action into FIVE separate lawsuits pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
21; or (3) some combination of the foregoing two options (for example, voluntarily
dismissing all unrelated claims except his Eighth Amendment medical
indifference claim against Rowe and Ace and requesting severance of that claim
only).

Stevens is admonished that if he requests full or partial severance, he will
be responsible for paying separate $350 filing fees for each severed case

pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). See George, 507 F.3d at

607; Redding, No. 3:15-cv-1047, 2015 WL 3710842, at *1-2. Stevens is further
warned that each case will be screened by the court pursuant to the mandatory
screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), which could result in dismissal

of some or all the claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (discussing

Case 3:25-cv-01878-JKM-MP Document16- Filed 02/19/26 Page /7of/7

PLRA’s three-strikes rule for prisoners filing in forma pauperis lawsuits).
Accordingly, Stevens should carefully consider his options and their ramifications
before filing his response.
lll. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court will provide Stevens with the choice of
voluntary dismissal or severance, as more fully set forth herein. An appropriate

Order follows.

Date: alalas Y
ry

JULIA K. MUN
United States District Cour