Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-cv-1166
07-13-2018
MICHAEL WILLIAM KOCH, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendants
(MARIANI, D.J.) () REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Doc. 55
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Michael William Koch's ("Plaintiff") Complaint filed on September 21, 2017 by the following Defendants: the Federal Bureau of Prisons (F.B.O.P.); Charles Kowalchick, II; Travis Minier; Dennis Sullivan; Nicholas Gallinot; and Tristan Roupp (collectively "Defendants"). (Doc. 55). Defendants argue Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed as Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
After reviewing Plaintiff's Complaint, as well as the subsequent motions from both parties, I RECOMMEND that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be DENIED. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his first Complaint with this Court. (Doc. 1). On December 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint alleging he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and that Defendants showed deliberate indifference to a known harm to Plaintiff. (Doc. 47, p. 3). Plaintiff alleges that this violated his Fifth and Eighth Amendment Rights. (Doc. 47, p. 4).
In response, Defendants have submitted a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, (Doc. 55). In their Brief in Support of the Motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 56, p. 3). II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff alleges that on June 3, 2016, Defendants falsified incident reports which led to Plaintiff being placed in restraints. (Doc. 47, p. 3). While Plaintiff was restrained he was placed in a dirty cell with sticky floors, a desk covered in stains and molding food, and an ant infestation in the corner. Id. Because of his restraints, Plaintiff could only access water from the sink by filling a food tray with water and bending over to drink from it. Id. Plaintiff alleges that at approximately 6:00 p.m. the tray was taken away and Plaintiff was unable to access potable drinking water for the remainder of the time he spent in restraints. Id.
Multiple times throughout the night, Plaintiff asked Defendants for a cup to access drinking water and each time his request was denied. Id. Defendants allegedly told Plaintiff that if he wanted water he would have to drink out of the toilet bowl. Id. Plaintiff asserts he had no choice but to drink from the toilet which was contaminated with fecal matter, blood clots, and other unidentified substances. (Doc. 47, p. 4). The Defendants allegedly said to Plaintiff, "DON'T TELL THE LT OR ELSE!!!" Id.
Defendants allegedly falsified information on the "Fifteen Minute Restraint Check Form" which resulted in Plaintiff's time in restraints being extended. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants threatened him with further time in restraints if he told the LT of his lack of access to water. Id. In total, Plaintiff claims he spent approximately seventeen (17) hours in restraints and was allegedly denied access to potable drinking water for the majority of that time. Id. III. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. It is proper for the court to dismiss a complaint in accordance with Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court "must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true, construe the complaint in the light favorable to the plaintiff, and ultimately determine whether plaintiff may be entitled to relief under any reasonable reading of the complaint." Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 229 (3d Cir. 2010). In reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court must "consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the [plaintiff's] claims are based upon these documents." Id. at 230.
In deciding whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court is required to accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint as well as all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the complaint. Jordan v. Fox Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Inc., 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). These allegations and inferences are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. However, the court "need not credit a complaint's bald assertions or legal conclusions when deciding a motion to dismiss." Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). Further, it is not proper to "assume that [the plaintiff] can prove facts that [he] has not alleged . . . ." Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).
Following the rule announced in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, "a pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Rather, a complaint must recite factual allegations sufficient to raise the plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation. Id. To determine the sufficiency of a complaint under the pleading regime established by the Supreme Court, the court must engage in a three step analysis:
First, the court must take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim. Second, the court should identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Finally, where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief. Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675, 679). "In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief" and instead must 'show' such an entitlement with its facts." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009). As the court of appeals has observed:
The Supreme Court in Twombly set forth the "plausibility" standard for overcoming a motion to dismiss and refined this approach in Iqbal. The plausibility standard requires the complaint to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. A complaint satisfies the plausibility standard when the factual pleadings "allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). This standard requires showing "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. A complaint which pleads facts "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability, [ ] "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement of relief.'" Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955).Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 220-21 (3d Cir. 2011).
In undertaking this task, the court generally relies only on the complaint, attached exhibits, and matters of public record. Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007). The court may also consider "undisputedly authentic document[s] that a defendant attached as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the [attached] documents." Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993). Moreover, "documents whose contents are alleged in the complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered." Pryor v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir. 2002); see also, U.S. Express Lines, Ltd. v. Higgins, 281 F.3d382, 388 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that "[a]lthough a district court may not consider matters extraneous to the pleadings, a document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint may be considered without converting the motion to dismiss in one for summary judgment.") However, the court may not rely on other parts of the record in determining a motion to dismiss. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien &Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). IV. ANALYSIS
When reviewing a complaint in light of a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may only consider the allegations in the complaint, taken as true, as well as any exhibits attached to the complaint or documents that are crucial to the claims made in the complaint. Mayer, 605 F.3d at 230. Plaintiff does not raise the issue of exhaustion in his Complaint, nor is he required to do so. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 212 (2007) ("There is thus no reason to suppose that the normal pleading rules have to be altered to facilitate judicial screening of complaints specifically for failure to exhaust"). Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that may be raised by the defendant. Id. As such, failure to exhaust may not be considered in light of a Motion to Dismiss unless it is clear from the face of the Complaint.
In their Brief in Support of the Motion as well as their Reply Brief, Defendants fail to raise any issues other than Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 56, p. 3); (Doc. 58, p. 2). Therefore, it is assumed that Defendants do not find Plaintiff's Fifth or Eighth Amendment claims facially deficient. As such, Plaintiff's Complaint is sufficiently pleaded to survive a Motion to Dismiss.
While Defendants do raise a strong argument in regards to Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, the argument relies on facts and documents not attached to or referenced in Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. 47). Such an argument is best suited for the summary judgment phase of litigation when the court can begin to look at outside documents. As such, I recommend Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be Denied. V. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:
(1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 55) be DENIED. Date: July 13, 2018
BY THE COURT:
s/William I . Arbuckle
William I. Arbuckle
U.S. Magistrate Judge
NOTICE OF LOCAL RULE 72.3
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
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 may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.Date: July 13, 2018
BY THE COURT
s/William I . Arbuckle
William I. Arbuckle
U.S. Magistrate Judge