Sybrandy v. Polemitis

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 3:26-cv-00639-JKM-CA Document4 _ Filed 03/16/26 Page 1of8

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

PAUL SYBRANDY, : No. 3:26cv639
Plaintiff ; (Judge Munley)
-
JENNIFER POLEMITIS,

Defendant

PPP Pee ee CeO POPC Cee eee ee eee eee eee eee ee eee eee eee eee |
PoP PPP CCC Cee Ce eee CPPCC Pee eee eee eee eee ee eee eee eee eee ee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee)

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Paul Sybrandy (“Sybrandy”), an inmate housed at the Lackawanna
County Prison, in Scranton, Pennsylvania (“LCP”), commenced this pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). The named defendant is
Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”) Coordinator Jennifer Polemitis. (Id. at 2).

The complaint is presently before the court for preliminary screening. For
the reasons set forth below, the court will dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.

I. Allegations of the Complaint

Sybrandy alleges that in December of 2025, he was assaulted by another

inmate at LCP. (Doc. 1, at 5). Sybrandy reported the assault to a correctional

Case 3:26-cv-00639-JKM-CA Document4 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2of8

officer, he was examined in the medical department, and he provided a
statement about the assault. (Id.).

The following day or two, Sybrandy alleges that defendant Polemitis
interviewed him and explained that he could file a PREA complaint “without worry
or threat of retaliation.” (Id. at 6). Sybrandy alleges that defendant Polemitis
failed to conduct a satisfactory investigation into the incident pursuant to the
PREA. (Id.). He asserts that defendant Polemitis did not take “nearly enough
[notes] for the investigative process.” (Id.).

Sybrandy alleges that in the following weeks, he was threatened because
he filed a “false PREA claim.” (Id. at 6-7). Due to these alleged threats,
Sybrandy requested, and was placed, in the “special handling” unit. (Id. at 7).

Since these events, Sybrandy alleges that all of his grievances have been
deemed “ungrievable” by defendant Polemitis. (Id.).

For relief, Sybrandy seeks monetary compensation in the amount of
$500,000,000.00. (Id. at 3).

il. 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 relief. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in

Case 3:26-cv-00639-JKM-CA Document4 Filed 03/16/26 Page 3of8

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 failure 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).

In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must “accept as
true all [factual] allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that
can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff.” Kanter v. Barella, 489 F.3d 170, 177 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Evancho v.

Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 350 (3d Cir. 2005)). Although the court is generally limited
in its review to the facts contained in the complaint, it “may also consider matters
of public record, orders, exhibits attached to the complaint and items appearing

in the record of the case.” Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d

1380, 1384 n. 2 (3d Cir. 1994); see also In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig.,

114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997).
When the sufficiency of a complaint is challenged, the court must conduct a

three-step inquiry. See Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130-31 (3d

3

Case 3:26-cv-00639-JKM-CA Document4 Filed 03/16/26 Page4of8

Cir. 2010). In the first step, “the court must ‘tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff

must plead to state a claim.” Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675

(2009)). Second, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated;
well-pleaded facts must be accepted as true, while mere legal conclusions may

be disregarded. Id. see also Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11

(3d Cir. 2009). Finally, once the well-pleaded factual allegations have been
isolated, the court must determine whether they are sufficient to show a
“olausible claim for relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at
556); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (requiring plaintiffs to allege facts sufficient to
“raise a right to relief above the speculative level”). A claim “has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

lll. Discussion

A. Prison Rape Elimination Act

Sybrandy appears to assert a claim against defendant Polemitis based on
his alleged dissatisfaction with her handling of his PREA complaint. (Doc. 1, at
6-7). Sybrandy seemingly alleges that through her actions, defendant Polemitis
failed to comply with the PREA. However, the PREA does not provide a private

right of action. See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283-85 (2002);

4

Case 3:26-cv-00639-JKM-CA Document4 Filed 03/16/26 Page5of8

Washinaton v. Folino, 2013 WL 998013, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 29, 2013) (holding

that violations of the Prison Rape Elimination Act do not create a private cause of

action); see also Henry v. CO#2 Gilara, 2017 WL 3424863, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Aug.

9, 2017); Nios v. United States, 2016 WL 1720816 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 29, 2016).

Thus, Sybrandy cannot “bring a private action to enforce obligations set forth in
the PREA, whether through the statute itself or through [an] attempt to enforce

the [LCP] PREA policy via section 1983.” Bowens v. Emps. of the Dep't of Corr.,

No. 14-2689, 2016 WL 3269580, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 2016), aff'd, Bowens v.

Wetzel, 674 F. App’x 133, 137 (3d Cir. 2017). Moreover, with respect to
Sybrandy’s challenge to the quality of the investigation into his PREA complaint,

he has no freestanding right to such an investigation. See Graw v. Fantasky, 68

F. App’x 378, 383 (3d Cir. 2003) (stating that “an allegation of a failure to
investigate, without another recognizable constitutional right, is not sufficient to
sustain a section 1983 claim.”). Accordingly, any claims premised upon
violations of the PREA must be dismissed as a matter of law.

B. Personal Involvement

It is well established that, in Section 1983 actions, liability cannot be
“predicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior.” Rode v.

Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988) (citations omitted); see also

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556. U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (affirming same principle in Bivens

Case 3:26-cv-00639-JKM-CA Document4 Filed 03/16/26 Page 6of8

context). Rather, a Section 1983 plaintiff must plausibly plead facts that
demonstrate the defendant’s “personal involvement in the alleged misconduct.”

Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2020). Personal involvement can

include direct wrongful conduct by a defendant, but it can also be demonstrated
through evidence of “personal direction” or “actual knowledge and
acquiescence”: however, such averments must be made with particularity. Id.
(quoting Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207). Furthermore, it is equally settled that
involvement in the post-incident grievance process alone does not give rise to
Section 1983 liability. See id. (affirming dismissal of claims against prison

yu

officials for lack of personal involvement when officials’ “only involvement” was

“their review and denial of [plaintiff]’s grievance”); Lewis v. Wetzel, 153 F. Supp.

3d 678, 696-97 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (collecting cases); Brooks v. Beard, 167 F. App’x

923, 925 (3d Cir. 2006) (nonprecedential); Alexander v. Gennarini, 144 F. App’x
924, 925 (3d Cir. 2005) (nonprecedential) (explaining that prisoner's claims
against certain defendants were “properly dismissed” because the allegations
against them “merely assert their involvement in the post-incident grievance
process’).

Sybrandy identifies defendant Polemitis as “the person who handles all
grievances[.]” (Doc. 1, at 7). He expresses dissatisfaction with defendant

Polemitis’ responses to his grievances. (Id.). Defendant Polemitis’ alleged

6

Case 3:26-cv-00639-JKM-CA Document4 _ Filed 03/16/26 Page /7of8

review and denial of Sybrandy’s grievances is insufficient to establish personal
involvement for a Section 1983 claim. This allegation fails to establish that
defendant Polemitis was personally involved in the purported unconstitutional
conduct. Accordingly, the court must dismiss this claim against defendant
Polemitis for lack of personal involvement.

IV. Leave To Amend

When a complaint fails to present a prima facie case of liability, district
courts must generally grant leave to amend before dismissing the complaint.

See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002); Shane

v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116-17 (3d Cir. 2000). Specifically, the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals has admonished that when a complaint is subject to dismissal
for failure to state a claim, courts should liberally grant leave to amend “unless

such an amendment would be inequitable or futile.” Phillips v. Cnty. of

Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 245 (3d Cir. 2008). Sybrandy’s claims against
defendant Polemitis are factually and legally flawed and thus incurable.
Therefore, the court concludes that curative amendment would be a futile
endeavor.

V. Conclusion

Consistent with the foregoing, the court will dismiss the complaint for failure

to state a claim in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

Case 3:26-cv-00639-JKM-CA Document 4

An appropriate order follows.

Date: March Ie , 2026

Filed 03/16/26 Page 8of8

A
JUDGE J MA K. MUNLEY
aS States District Gour