Irizarry v. Kauffman et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270
Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 33
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANGEL IRIZARRY,
No. 4:22-CV-1892
Plaintiff,
(Munley, J.)
v.
(Caraballo, M.J.)
JOHN WETZEL,
Defendant
..
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Angel Irizarry, an inmate previously incarcerated at State Correctional Institution Huntingdon ("SCI-Huntingdon") proceeding pro se, filed his fourth amended complaint in this action on December 7, 2022, alleging civil rights violations and tort injuries relating to conditions at SCI-Huntingdon. Doc. 224. On September 20, 2023, the Court dismissed all but one of Irizarry's claims against the sole remaining defendant, John Wetzel. Doc. 247. That claim alleges that Wetzel was responsible for, or indifferent to, the danger posed to Irizarry by the deteriorating physical condition of SCI-Huntingdon, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. Doc. 224 at 30-31.
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM £ Document 270
Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 33
On March 28, 2024, Wetzel moved for summary judgment against Irizarry. Doc. 253. The motion is now ripe for decision, and was referred to the undersigned to issue a report and recommendation. As set forth below, Irizarry failed to exhaust significant portions of his claim before filing this suit, as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). Moreover, those portions of his claim that he did exhaust suffer from fatal substantive flaws. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends granting Wetzel's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the remaining claim with prejudice.
II. Background
A. Relevant Procedural History
As previously recounted by the Court, this action began on January 8, 2021, when "pro se-prisoner Plaintiffs Vann L. Bailey, Jason Cisne, Angel Irizarry, Alexis Maldanado, and Miguel Molina, representative members of a proposed class of inmates incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon ("SCI-Huntingdon"), initiated a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants for constitutional violations caused by the
2

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 33
deterioration of the SCI-Huntingdon facility and by employee misconduct." Doc. 236 at 2.
Thereafter, the five plaintiffs retained counsel, through whom they filed an amended complaint on March 21, 2021. Doc. 35. Following the denial of class certification, counsel withdrew, and the plaintiffs were given leave to file individual amended complaints. Docs. 84, 88, 100. On November 12, 2021, Irizarry filed his individual third amended complaint. Doc. 101.
Following motion practice, on August 30, 2022, the Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the various complaints. Doc. 213. "Specifically, the negligence claims against Defendants Wetzel and Kauffman in their official capacities were dismissed with prejudice, the remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice, [and] each Plaintiff was permitted to file a fourth amended complaint[.]" Doc. 236 at 2. On December 1, 2022, the Court severed the remaining plaintiffs' claims into separate civil actions. Doc. 223. Accordingly, Irizarry's claims were reassigned their current case number, and on December 7, 2022, he filed his fourth amended complaint. Doc. 224.
3

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 Filed 11/18/25 Page 4 of 33
In his fourth amended complaint, Irizarry originally asserted three causes of action: "infliction of cruel and unusual punishment by prolonged confinement under inhumane conditions" against all defendants (Count I); "deliberate indifference to risk of deadly infection" against all defendants (Count II); and negligence claims against defendants Wetzel and Kauffman (Count III). Doc. 224 at 30-32. The defendants moved to dismiss Count I against all defendants but Wetzel, Count II against all defendants, and to strike Count III. Doc. 225. On September 20, 2023, the Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed and struck all counts against all defendants except Count I against Wetzel. Doc. 247.
Accordingly, in the fourth amended complaint, one claim remains pending in this action: an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim for "prolonged confinement under inhumane conditions." Doc. 224 at 30-31. Irizarry premises this claim on allegations that, when he was incarcerated at SCI-Huntingdon from 2014 to 2022 (Doc. 253-2 at 129), the "structures, mechanical systems and other features of the physical plant at SCI-Huntingdon [fell] into disrepair" and threatened the physical and mental wellbeing of inmates. Doc. 224 at 1-2.
4

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 Filed 11/18/25 Page 5 of 33
In particular, Irizarry asserts that multiple inmates are housed in cells designated for only one occupant (id. at 7); supports for cellblocks A through D are unstable and "in danger of collapse" (id. at 6, 8-9); the building's ventilation system is non-functional and "filled with trash, rodent droppings, nests, black mold, asbestos, and other" debris (id. at 2, 6); cells have no windows or protective glass, and the cellblock catwalks are unstable and do not have sufficient safety systems in place to prevent injury from falling (id. at 6, 8); walls, ceilings, and floors throughout the building are covered by black mold and asbestos (id. at 7-8); communal shower spaces are inadequate for the number of inmates assigned to them and drains often clog (Doc. 224 at 7); water in the building is delivered via lead pipes, often leaving it gray in color and tasting like "metal and sewage" (id. at 8); the building's toilets are "more than 80 years old" and consequently "cracked, leaking, and encrusted with sediment[]" (id. at 7); mice, rats, roaches, and other insects regularly roam the building (id. at 9); the electrical system is "dated and poorly maintained," and often causes fires and blackouts (id.); and the emergency evacuation systems are dangerously slow
5

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 £ Filed 11/18/25 Page 6 of 33
because "the catwalks [are] narrow and the locking mechanisms of the cells [are] antiquated .... " Id.
Because of these conditions, particularly those regarding ventilation and mold, Irizarry alleges that from a physical standpoint, he "suffered chronic respiratory distress and nose bleeds," and allergic reactions. Doc. 224 at 8, 29. He also alleges that he suffered mental harm from these conditions, including "prolonged fear and anxiety and has developed deep depression." Id. at 30.
Specific to Wetzel, Irizarry contends that as Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") during the relevant period, Wetzel was "responsible for the overall operation" of the state correctional institutions and "for the safety and custody" of the inmates housed within them. Doc. 224 at 4-5. Irizarry also claims that Wetzel, as Secretary of the DOC, had "the power to allocate the resources necessary to maintain, repair, retrofit, or replace the prison." Id. at 27. Irizarry further avers that he put Wetzel on written notice of these various conditions at SCI-Huntingdon, and that, at a minimum, Wetzel would have been alerted to such conditions through "reports" and "routine yearly tours and inspections." Id. at 27.
6

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 Filed 11/18/25
Page 7 of 33
On October 3, 2023, Wetzel answered the fourth amended complaint and, among other things, asserted an affirmative defense of failure to administratively exhaust. Doc. 249 at 18-20. On March 28, 2024, following the close of discovery, Wetzel moved for summary judgment. Doc. 253. In his motion, he contends that he is entitled to summary judgment because Irizarry failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this federal action, that there is insufficient record evidence to establish Irizarry's claim, and that even if there was sufficient evidence, Irizarry's claim fails as a matter of law. Doc. 255 at 1-2, 3, 7, 8-15.
Irizarry subsequently received an extension to file an opposition to Wetzel's motion for summary judgment by January 6, 2025. Docs. 266, 267. On March 11, 2025, the Court ordered Irizarry to file an opposition to the motion after the date of the extension passed. Doc. 268. In that order, the Court advised Irizarry that any failure to file an opposition by March 24, 2025, "may result in the Court recommending that the motion for summary judgment be granted." Doc. 268. Despite being afforded those opportunities, Irizarry has not filed any brief or
7

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270
Filed 11/18/25 Page 8 of 33
counterstatement of facts in opposition to Wetzel's motion for summary judgement.
B. Undisputed Material Facts
In conjunction with his motion for summary judgment, and pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, Wetzel filed a statement of material facts with supporting exhibits. Docs. 253, 254. As detailed above, that statement remains unchallenged by Irizarry. Litigants who oppose a motion for summary judgment must submit their own statements of facts that respond directly and correspondingly to the movant's statement of facts. M.D. Pa. L.R. 56.1. In the absence of such opposition, "[a]ll material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted . . . . " Id.
Pro se litigants are required to follow the local rules equally with all other litigants. See Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021) (pro se litigants "cannot flout procedural rules-they must abide by the same rules that apply to all other litigants.") (quoting Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2013)). Accordingly, as Irizarry did not avail himself of multiple opportunities to submit a counterstatement of facts, Wetzel's statement of material facts and its
8

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 £ Filed 11/18/25 Page 9 of 33
accompanying exhibits are deemed unopposed and admitted. See Liberty Bell Bank v. Rogers, 726 F. App'x 147, 150-51 (3d Cir. 2018) ("Because [the defendant] neglected to file a responsive statement of material facts, the District Court was entitled to deem the statement of facts as admitted."); Krushin v. Wolff, 2023 WL 2472601, at *2-3 (M.D. Pa. 2023) (deeming the accompanying statement of facts admitted under Local Rule 56.1, for defendant's failure to respond).
As set forth in Wetzel's unopposed statement of material facts and supporting exhibits, Irizarry currently is an inmate of SCI-Dallas. Doc. 254 at 1. He previously was housed at SCI-Huntingdon from "April 22, 2014 through August 1, 2019, and October 1, 2019 through September 13, 2022." Id. at 3; Doc. 253-2 at 129.
SCI-Huntingdon opened in 1889, and was erected using "steel, cast iron and reinforced concrete." Doc. 253-1 at 4 (Declaration of Robert Adams, DOC Chief of the Safety & Environmental Protection Division). Cellblocks A through D of the prison, which are germane to most of Irizarry's allegations, consist of "tiered cellblocks that are composed of three or four levels of cells . . . constructed with three concrete walls, a floor [,]. .. a ceiling[,]" and a front fourth wall affixed with vertical steel
9

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 Filed 11/18/25 Page 10 of 33
bars and a door. Id. These cells are ventilated and heated through air ducts located at their rear which utilizes a continuously operating system of fans to "draw air into the cell from the common atrium area." Id. at 5. Relatedly, cellblocks A through D also include "large windows in the common areas [which] . . . are frequently opened to allow fresh air to circulate on the units." Doc. 254 at 7; Doc. 253-1 at 6.
The cellblock ventilation system is inspected monthly, and its air filters are replaced on an as-needed basis. Doc. 254 at 7; Doc. 253-1 at 5. And while annual inspections of the HVAC system at SCI-Huntingdon were not conducted in 2020 or 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they were completed in 2019 and 2022, and the HVAC system passed inspection both times. Doc. 253-1 at 4-5; Doc. 253-2 at 30, 39.
Irizarry filed one grievance during his time at SCI-Huntingdon that arguably encompasses some of the allegations in his federal action. Namely, on April 30, 2020, he filed grievance #866307, in which he alleged that he was locked in his cell for four consecutive days, and that his hygiene suffered from lack of bathing. Doc. 253-2 at 138-39. He also alleged that his hygiene problem was compounded by the absence of cell windows, and because the ventilation system did not properly circulate
10

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 Filed 11/18/25 Page 11 of 33
air. Id. Accordingly, he developed dermatological issues on his face, neck, upper arms, and shoulders. Id. Irizarry further claimed that the unsanitary conditions violated his religious beliefs and Eighth Amendment rights, and he deemed Wetzel a DOC staff member responsible for these circumstances. Id. at 139.
The grievance was denied upon initial review on May 28, 2020, because the reviewer found that Irizarry and other inmates were justifiably locked in their cells for extended periods to "enforce strict quarantine standards" in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. at 136. Moreover, the reviewer found that while this policy prevented Irizarry from showering, it did not prevent him from using the sink in his cell to clean himself, and he was provided the option of submitting "a call slip for" his dermatology issues. Doc. 253-2 at 136. Finally, the reviewer noted that the prison had since implemented a new policy that permitted a rotation of prisoners out of their cells to conduct their out- of-cell activities, including showering. Id.
In his appeal of the initial denial, Irizarry largely reasserted his allegations and claims and reiterated that he held Wetzel responsible. Id. at 135. The appeal was denied on identical grounds. Id. at 134.
11
:

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270
Filed 11/18/25 Page 12 of 33
Irizarry appealed the grievance to final review, where it was again rejected on the same grounds. Id. at 133. Accordingly, he pursued the grievance through all three levels of administrative review-initial review, appeal, and final review-and it was ultimately denied on the merits.
III. Discussion
A. Motion for Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate only when record materials, including but not limited to, "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Wishkin v. Potter, 476 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), (c)(1)(A). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the court must view the evidence "in the light most favorable to the non- moving party and must make all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Wishkin, 476 F.3d at 184.
A factual dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."
12

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270
Filed 11/18/25 Page 13 of 33
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). And a fact is material only if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law .... " Id. But "a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
The movant "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record, including but not limited to] the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Id. " '[T]he non-moving party must [then] oppose the motion and, in doing so, may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings' but, instead, 'must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Bare assertions, conclusory allegations, or suspicions will not suffice.'" Jutrowski v. Twp. of Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280, 288-89 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting D.E. v. Cent. Dauphin Sch. Dist., 765 F.3d 260, 268-69 (3d Cir. 2014)).
13

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270
Filed 11/18/25 Page 14 of 33
Even where, as here, the non-movant fails to oppose the motion for summary judgment, the movant must still satisfy the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323 ("[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion[.]"). This means that "[w]here the moving party does not have the burden of proof on the relevant issues," and they have pinpointed in their unopposed motion evidence sufficient to show no reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-movant, they are entitled to "judgment as a matter of law." Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Rev., 922 F.2d 168, 175 (3d Cir. 1990); see also M.D. Pa. L.R. 7.6 ("Any party who fails to comply with this rule shall be deemed not to oppose such motion.").
B. Failure to Exhaust Under the PLRA
Wetzel contends that Irizarry failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit, thus warranting its dismissal. Specifically, Wetzel avers that the only factual synergy between Irizarry's grievance and fourth amended complaint lies in their mutual allegations that the air ventilation in SCI-Huntingdon was poor or non-
14

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 Filed 11/18/25 Page 15 of 33
functional. Doc. 255 at 8. Thus, according to Wetzel, Irizarry's grievance cannot satisfy administrative exhaustion requirements for the myriad other factual allegations in his complaint. Id. Wetzel further contends, however, that Irizarry also failed to exhaust the air ventilation issue, because "the matter was not addressed in the initial review response, nor in Irizarry's subsequent appeals or responses thereto." Id.
A review of grievance #866307 finds that it did not put the DOC on notice of the majority of issues that form the factual predicate for Irizarry's Eighth Amendment claim against Wetzel. The grievance did, however, sufficiently notify the DOC of Irizzary's complaints concerning SCI-Huntingdon's ventilation system, thus warranting further analysis.
The PLRA provides that before prisoners file suit in federal court over the conditions of their confinement, they must have first exhausted all "administrative remedies as are available[.]" 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This legislation was intended to "eliminate[ courts' conducting case-by- case inquiries until after a prisoner has presented his [current] claims to a particular administrative remedy program, which often helps focus and clarify the issues for the court." Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65, 74 (3d
15

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270
Filed 11/18/25 Page 16 of 33
Cir. 2000) (quoting Alexander v. Hawk, 159 F.3d 1321, 1326 n.11 (11th Cir. 1998)).
Thus, "just as subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue, exhaustion is a threshold issue that courts must address to determine whether litigation is being conducted in the right forum at the right time." Small v. Camden Cnty., 728 F.3d 265, 269-70 (3d Cir. 2013). Because administrative exhaustion is a threshold issue, "factual disputes relevant to exhaustion" may usually be resolved by a district judge without the participation of a jury, provided that the parties receive "some form of notice ... and an opportunity to respond[.]" Prater v. Dep't of Corr., 76 F.4th 184, 265 (3d Cir. 2023); but see Perttu v. Richards, 605 U.S. 460, 468 (2025) (holding that "as a matter of statutory interpretation that parties have a right to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim . . ").
Although exhaustion under the PLRA is a threshold issue, it nevertheless is an affirmative defense that defendants must themselves assert. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007) ("We conclude that failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA[.]"). Here,
16

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270
Filed 11/18/25 Page 17 of 33
Wetzel raised the defense in his answer. Doc. 249 at 20 ("Plaintiff's unexhausted claims are barred pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).").
Exhaustion under the PLRA must be "proper" to be effective. Shifflett v. Korszniak, 934 F.3d 356, 364 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006)). Proper exhaustion requires full compliance "with the prison's administrative regulations governing inmate grievances." Prater, 76 F.4th at 203. In practice, this means the inmate cannot have "further avenues of relief ... available to him within the . .. grievance process[,]" and his grievance cannot have been denied by the prison for procedural deficiencies. Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 232 (3d Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, a prison's specific grievance procedures "supply the yardstick for measuring" whether a claim has been properly exhausted. Id. at 231. The Pennsylvania Inmate Grievance System Policy has been in force at all DOC facilities, including SCI-Huntingdon, since 2015. See DC-ADM 804 at 11 ("This policy is applicable to all facilities operated
1 Located at https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-
pagov/en/cor/documents/about-us/doc-policies/804%20Inmate%20Grievances.pdf.
17
1

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 Filed 11/18/25 Page 18 of 33
under the jurisdiction of, or conducting business with the Department of Corrections[.]").
The policy, formally known as DC-ADM 804, provides a three- tiered system of review for inmate grievances. Id. at 4-25. The first tier is the initial review stage (id. at 9); the second tier is the appeal stage (id. at 15); and the third tier is the final review stage (id. at 18). The DOC also has form-based procedural requirements for grievances, including that the grievance "be legible [and] understandable"; "include a statement of the facts relevant to the claim," including "the date, approximate time, and location of the event(s) that gave rise to the grievance"; that the prisoner "identify individuals directly involved in the event(s)"; and that "[a]ny grievance based on separate events must be presented separately, unless it is necessary to combine the issues to support the claim." DC-ADM 804 at 5-6.
Thus, for a grievance to be properly exhausted, it must be grieved through all three tiers of review and comport with applicable procedural requirements. See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90-91 ("Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency's deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively
18

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270
Filed 11/18/25 Page 19 of 33
without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings."); Rinaldi v. United States, 904 F.3d 257, 271 (3d Cir. 2018) ("[W]hen an inmate's allegations have been fully examined on the merits and at the highest level, they are, in fact, exhausted.") (quotations omitted).
Here, Irizarry's grievance concerned a four-day period spanning April 26, 2020, through April 30, 2020, during which he was continuously locked in his cell. Doc. 253-2 at 138-39. He protested the effect these conditions, coupled with his inability to shower and the dysfunctional ventilation system in SCI-Huntingdon's cellblocks, had on his hygiene and dermatological issues. Id. at 138. He also alleged that such unsanitary conditions were against his religious beliefs, naming Wetzel among the DOC staff deemed responsible for the conditions of confinement. Id. at 139.
Few of the factual allegations in the fourth amended complaint are reflected in that grievance. Specifically, Irizarry's fourth amended complaint alleges that SCI-Huntingdon's cells are overcrowded and lack protective glass (Doc. 224 at 6-8); its cellblocks A through D are insufficiently supported and have precarious catwalks (id. at 6, 8-9); its
19

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 Filed 11/18/25 Page 20 of 33
walls, ceilings, and floors are covered by black mold and asbestos (id. at 7-8); its communal shower spaces are unsanitary and too small (id. at 7); its water pipes are lead based and leave the drinking water gray in color and smelly (id. at 8); its toilets are antiquated and function poorly (id. at 7); it is infested with vermin (Doc. 224 at 9); its electrical system is antiquated and dangerous (id.); and its emergency electrical systems are dangerously slow (id.).
None of those premises were initially raise in Irizarry's grievance, or naturally flow from the investigation of his grievance; a lack of factual alignment that is fatal to most of his remaining federal claim under the Eighth Amendment. As the Court of Appeals made clear, PLRA exhaustion depends on "the prisoner's compliance with the prison's administrative regulations governing inmate grievances." Spruill, 372 F.3d at 222. Here, DC-ADM 804 provides that, in all situations aside from those involving allegations of sexual abuse, emergencies, or misconduct charges, when an inmate seeks resolution of an issue that cannot be done addressed informally, the inmate "must submit" a grievance. DC-ADM 804 at 4-5 (emphasis added).
20

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 Filed 11/18/25 Page 21 of 33
Grievances, moreover, "must include a statement of the facts relevant to the claim." Id. at 5 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, Irizarry was required first to grieve the individual factual issues about SCI-Huntingdon's facilities alleged in his fourth amended complaint, per the terms of DC-ADM 804. Spruill, 372 F.3d at 222; DC-ADM 804 at 4-5. He largely did not, leaving them unexhausted under the PLRA, and precluded from serving as a basis for this action. See Olivares v. United States, 447 F. App'x 347, 352 (3d Cir. 2011) ("One way or another, the[ ] [inmate] was expected to place his unresolved . .. complaints ... before prison officials.")
That said, a select segment of the facts alleged in Irizarry's fourth amended complaint do parallel allegations in his grievance. Namely, similar to the charge in his grievance that SCI-Huntingdon's cellblocks have dysfunctional ventilation systems and no windows, see Doc. 253-2 at 138, he alleges in his fourth amended complaint that "the prison's ventilation system is no longer functional," that many of the vents into the cells were "sealed decades ago," that cells have no windows to ameliorate the lack of ventilation, and that the remaining unsealed cellblock vents have "not been cleaned out in decades," resulting in
21

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270
Filed 11/18/25 Page 22 of 33
them being "filled with trash, rodent droppings, nests, black mold, asbestos, and other ... debris." Doc. 224 at 2, 6. Likewise, in both documents, Irizarry asserts an Eighth Amendment claim against Wetzel on account of those alleged conditions. Doc. 253-2 at 138-39. Thus, because these "unresolved ... complaints" between Irizarry's grievance and fourth amended complaint sufficiently align, Olivares, 447 F. App'x at 352, and Irizarry's grievance was fully exhausted through final review, the corresponding claim in his fourth amended complaint may proceed.
Wetzel asserts, without any supporting authority, that because the facts about cell ventilation in Irizarry's grievance were "not addressed in the initial review response, nor in Irizarry's subsequent appeals or responses," that they were not properly exhausted. Doc. 255 at 8. Although factually correct, that is not the operative inquiry.
Rather, the issue is whether Irizarry's grievance gave the reviewing prison officials sufficient notice of a specific problem such that they had the opportunity to " 'take appropriate responsive measures.'" Mack v. Warden Loretto FCI, 839 F.3d 286, 296 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Johnson v. Testman, 380 F.3d 691, 697 (2d Cir. 2004));
22

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 Filed 11/18/25 Page 23 of 33
see also Williams v. Beard, 482 F.3d 637, 640 (3d Cir. 2007) ("The primary purpose of a grievance is to alert prison officials to a problem[.]"). Irizarry's grievance clearly articulated that the allegedly dysfunctional ventilation system in SCI-Huntingdon's cellblocks, coupled with his long stay in his cell, contributed to his poor hygiene. Id. at 138-39. Whether the ventilation allegation was a focus of the appeals process is beside the point; it was enough that Irizarry, consistent with the factual requirements of DC-ADM 804, provided prison officials specific notice of a problem in his grievance to afford them the opportunity to investigate and address the issue, and that the grievance was subsequently denied on non-procedural grounds at all three levels of review. Spruill, 372 F.3d at 222; Mack, 839 F.3d at 296; Nyhuis, 204 F.3d at 77-78 ("[C]ompliance with the administrative remedy scheme will be satisfactory if it is substantial.").
Accordingly, Irizarry properly exhausted the portion of his federal claim pertaining to cellblock ventilation issues. A review of the substantive merits of that claim follows.
23

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270
Filed 11/18/25 Page 24 of 33
C. Conditions of Confinement Claim Related to Ventilation
Wetzel seeks summary judgment on the premise that, based on the undisputed record, Irizarry cannot establish an objective deprivation of human need, or Wetzel's subjective indifference. Doc. 255 at 9-10. In support of his position, Wetzel offers evidence relating to SCI-Huntingdon's ventilation system and inspection practices. Doc. 254 at 6-7. A review of the record, which stands unchallenged by Irizarry, determines that no reasonable jury could find in his favor.2
To prevail on his remaining Eighth Amendment claim, Irizarry must establish two elements. First, that he suffered an "objectively, sufficiently serious" deprivation at the hands of the defendants. Beers- Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 125 (3d Cir. 2001); Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209, 225 (3d Cir. 2017). Second, Irizarry must establish that Wetzel acted with "deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety." Beers-Capitol, 256 F.3d at 125. This requires that Wetzel "must actually have known or been aware of the excessive risk to inmate safety." Id.
2 Wetzel also contends that the allegations in the fourth amended complaint do not establish his personal involvement in the underlying circumstances. Doc. 255 at 3- 7, 10. As summary judgment is warranted on the objective and subjective prongs of the claim, the Court need not address Wetzel's personal involvement.
24

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270
Filed 11/18/25 Page 25 of 33
"To satisfy the first prong of this test, the condition of confinement at issue must deprive the prisoner of the minimum of civilized life's basic necessities-food, clothing, shelter." Beers-Capitol, 256 F.3d at 125 (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994)). To this end, although "[i]nmates 'have a right to adequate ventilation and a right to be free from extreme heat and cold temperatures[,] ... the Constitution does not give inmates the right to be free from all discomfort.'" Rodriguez v. Thomas, 299 F. Supp. 3d 618, 638 (M.D. Pa. 2018) (quoting Shelby Cnty. Jail Inmates v. Westlake, 798 F.2d 1085, 1087 (7th Cir. 1986)) (second and third alterations in original).
Irizarry alleges in his fourth amended complaint that "the prison's ventilation system is no longer functional[.]" Doc. 224 at 2. More specifically, he alleges that the vent system located at the rear of cells "was sealed decades ago and the openings that remain" have "not been cleaned out in decades[.]" Doc. 224 at 6. This, he claims, has caused them to become unsanitary, and resulted in them being "filled with trash, rodent droppings, nests, black mold, asbestos, and other detritus debris." Id. at 6. Relatedly, he claims that "exterior windows in the walls opposite to the cell tiers are sealed shut and no longer can be
25

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 Filed 11/18/25 Page 26 of 33
opened." Id. Irizarry has not, however, offered any record evidence to support those allegations and oppose Wetzel's motion for summary judgment, despite being afforded multiple opportunities. Thus, the testimonial and documentary evidence offered by Wetzel constitute the sole premise on which the Court may evaluate the motion.
Indeed, Irizarry's failure to present any record evidence corroborating his claimed deleterious conditions of confinement mandates dismissal. To establish that the condition of SCI- Huntingdon's ventilation system constituted an objectively serious deprivation of life's basic necessities, Irizarry would need to demonstrate that it created health risks that were "dangerous, intolerable or shockingly substandard[.]" Peterkin v. Jeffes, 855 F.2d 1021, 1027 (3d Cir. 1988) (citation omitted); see also Allah v. Ricci, 2012 WL 243570, at *6 (D.N.J. 2012), aff'd, 532 F. App'x 48 (3d Cir. 2013). He has not offered any such corroboration.
Even if Irizarry offered evidence supporting his claim that the conditions at SCI-Huntingdon caused him "chronic respiratory distress and nose bleeds," and allergic reactions, Doc. 224 at 8, 29, those circumstances would not necessarily constitute cruel and unusual
26

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270
Filed 11/18/25 Page 27 of 33
punishment. While experiencing respiratory discomfort and irritation are less than ideal, " 'the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons [.]'" Peterkin, 855 F.2d at 1027 (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981)). And a lack of ventilation causing discomfort in a cell does not "meet the requirements for a claim of cruel and unusual punishment." Molina v. Kauffman, 2022 WL 3913394, at *15 (M.D. Pa. July 25, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2022 WL 3925280 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2022).
Rather, Irizarry would need to show that his health was in serious danger because he was housed somewhere that was arguably unfit for human habitation. In this context, that means conditions of confinement with dangerously inadequate ventilation that exposed him to something like "extreme heat and cold temperatures[.]" Rodriguez, 299 F. Supp. 3d at 638; Tinsley v. Vaughn, 1991 WL 95323, at *6 (E.D. Pa. 1991). By contrast, Irizarry only alleges, without any substantiation, that poor and unsanitary ventilation caused him to suffer from dry and irritated airways. Doc. 224 at 8, 29. Absent "evidence of actual harm to [Irizarry] caused by the alleged conditions of SCI-Huntingdon, he cannot demonstrate the existence of a serious
27

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270
Filed 11/18/25 Page 28 of 33
constitutional deprivation" from allegedly poor ventilation. Martinez v. Rivello, 2022 WL 3088092, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2022), aff'd, 2023 WL 3376545 (3d Cir. May 11, 2023).
Moreover, the undisputed evidence provided by Wetzel refutes Irizarry's allegations by showing that the cellblock ventilation system at SCI-Huntingdon was sanitary and maintained in good working order; a determination that weighs against both the objective deprivation of a human necessity, and Wetzel's alleged subjective indifference. Rather than the dilapidated picture of SCI-Huntingdon's ventilation system painted by the allegations in Irizarry's fourth amended complaint, the declaration produced by Wetzel of Robert Adams, the DOC's Chief of the Safety & Environmental Protection Division, and supporting exhibits, evinces a properly functioning system that was regularly inspected and cleaned. Doc. 253-2 at 3.
In particular, Adams, who has personal knowledge of the cellblock ventilation system at SCI-Huntingdon because he is in charge, of, among other things, "Fire Suppression and Prevention, Safety, Occupational Health, Environmental Protection and Sanitation " for the DOC, id., states that the facility's:
28

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270
Filed 11/18/25
Page 29 of 33
[V]entilation and heating to the cells is provided by return air ducts in the back of the cell, which draw air into the cell from the common atrium area. The return air proceeds into a secure utility chase behind the cells by way of large fans in the attic that also filter the air before it is introduced and heated, if necessary, back to the housing unit. Some of the air is rejected to the outside by ventilation in the roof of the common atrium area and replaced with outside air from open windows. When the weather is warmer, the air is circulated in the same manner through the cell; however, the exhaust fans in the roof draw out some of the warm air from the common areas to be replaced with air from select open windows to provide further cooling and ventilation. The attic return fans are in operation on a continuous basis to draw air through the cells and prevent stratification and stagnation of air on the housing units.
Each month, staff members replace necessary air filters and inspect the system.
Id. at 5-6.
That sworn declaration squarely refutes the ventilation allegations in Irizarry's fourth amended complaint, and shows that the system functions within normal parameters and is subject to monthly sanitation reviews. Moreover, staff members replace air filters when necessary, during monthly inspections. See Riley v. DeCarlo, 532 F. App'x 23, 26 (3d Cir. 2013) (affirming summary judgment when inmate claimed poor ventilation system "made him suffer various physical ailments" where "the record reflects that officials cleaned the ducts and
29

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 Filed 11/18/25 Page 30 of 33
changed the filters; accordingly, officials were not indifferent to the conditions of the ventilation system.").
Furthermore, Irizarry's subsidiary allegation that the inability to open exterior windows in the cellblock contributes to the poor ventilation, is also refuted by Adam's, who avers that the cellblock windows "are frequently opened to allow for fresh air to circulate on the units." Doc. 253-2 at 6. None of those sworn assertions are challenged by Irizarry, and also weigh against any claim of subjective indifference. See Anchorage Assocs., 922 F.2d at 175 ("Where the moving party does not have the burden of proof on the relevant issues [and the other party has not responded], this means that the district court must determine that the deficiencies in the opponent's evidence designated in or in connection with the motion entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.").
In addition to the monthly inspections of the ventilation system described in the Adams declaration, Wetzel has also produced documents evincing comprehensive annual staff inspections of SCI- Huntingdon's HVAC system. Although the annual inspections were not conducted in 2020 or 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, they
30

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270
Filed 11/18/25 Page 31 of 33
were conducted in 2019 and 2022, and both show that SCI-
Huntingdon's HVAC system "complies with all applicable health codes and regulations .... " Doc. 253-2 at 4-5, 30, 39. Moreover, while SCI- Huntingdon's failure to conduct annual inspections in 2020 and 2021 might, under normal circumstances, suggest a failure to comply with applicable state health and safety standards, the Court "cannot conclude that, when faced with a perfect storm of a contagious virus and the space constraints inherent in a correctional facility, [officials] here acted unreasonably by doing their best." Swain v. Junior, 961 F.3d 1276, 1289 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotations omitted).
As Wetzel has produced record evidence refuting the unsupported allegations made in Irizarry's fourth amended complaint, and Irizarry's unsubstantiated claim fails to establish an objective deprivation of human need, or Wetzel's subjective indifference to that need, no genuine disputes of material fact exist that could result in a reasonable jury returning a verdict in Irizarry's favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Accordingly, summary judgment should be granted in Wetzel's favor.
31

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 Filed 11/18/25 Page 32 of 33
IV. Recommendation
For the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. Defendant Wetzel's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 253) be GRANTED, and the Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 224) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
2. The Clerk's Office be DIRECTED to TERMINATE Wetzel as a Defendant and CLOSE this case.
The parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge
32

Case 4:22-cv-01892-JKM
Document 270 Filed 11/18/25 Page 33 of 33
may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
The failure to file timely objections to the foregoing Report and
Recommendation may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.
Date: November 18, 2025
s/ Phillip J. Caraballo Phillip J. Caraballo United States Magistrate Judge
33