Barrett Tunsil v. Correctional Officer Taylor, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed Barrett Tunsil’s amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court held that the complaint did not allege personal involvement by certain supervisory defendants, that verbal threats and harassment without a reinforcing act were not actionable under § 1983, that the Prison Rape Elimination Act provides no private right of action, and that private citizens cannot initiate criminal proceedings.

Holdings

1. The amended complaint failed to state a § 1983 claim against Quist, Harry, and Booher because it alleged no personal involvement by them and did not plead facts supporting supervisory liability.
2. The alleged verbal threats and racial and sexual harassment did not state a constitutional claim under § 1983 because Tunsil alleged no physical injury, damage, or reinforcing act accompanying the statements.
3. The Prison Rape Elimination Act does not provide a private right of action, so any PREA claim was dismissed.
4. Tunsil could not initiate criminal proceedings against the defendants because private citizens lack standing to institute criminal prosecutions.
5. The motions for recusal, protection from abuse, appointment of counsel, and injunctive relief were denied as moot because the operative complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint stated a § 1983 claim against Quist, Harry, and Booher when it alleged no personal involvement by those defendants.
2. Whether alleged verbal threats and racial and sexual harassment, without physical injury, damage, or an accompanying reinforcing act, stated a constitutional claim under § 1983.
3. Whether the Prison Rape Elimination Act provides a private cause of action.
4. Whether a private citizen may initiate criminal proceedings against defendants through a civil complaint.
5. Whether the pending motions for recusal, protection from abuse, appointment of counsel, and injunctive relief should be denied as moot after dismissal of the amended complaint.

Disposition

dismissed