Andrew McCormick v. Commonwealth of PA DOC, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants Andrew McCormick leave to proceed in forma pauperis and denies his motion to appoint counsel without prejudice. On screening, the court dismisses the claims against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds and dismisses the asserted due-process claims for failure to state a claim, while allowing leave to amend most claims.

Holdings

1. A prisoner who demonstrates inability to prepay the costs of the action may proceed in forma pauperis, subject to the statutory obligation to pay filing fees in installments.
2. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from McCormick's § 1983 claims for money damages because it is an arm of the Commonwealth, Pennsylvania has not waived immunity, and Congress did not abrogate that immunity through § 1983.
3. The alleged one-night placement in an observation cell and transfers among Pennsylvania prisons did not implicate a protected liberty interest or state a plausible procedural due-process claim.
4. Interference with, or failure to provide a favorable response to, a prison grievance does not itself state a cognizable § 1983 procedural-due-process claim.
5. McCormick failed to state a substantive-due-process claim because he did not identify a protected interest and the alleged conduct was governed by more specific constitutional provisions.
6. The allegations against Superintendent Rivello and Lieutenant Fochtman did not state plausible supervisory-liability claims because they relied on supervisory status, post-event knowledge, or generalized statements rather than personal involvement, direction, acquiescence, or a causally connected policy or practice.
7. The complaint did not state a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim because McCormick failed to allege an adverse action caused by his grievances or facts showing how his transfers adversely affected him.
8. The complaint did not state a plausible failure-to-intervene claim against Officer Renninger because it did not allege facts showing that Renninger had a realistic and reasonable opportunity to intervene in Burton's apparently momentary deployment of OC spray.
9. The complaint did not state a plausible excessive-force claim against Officer Burton based on the OC spray because the allegations were unclear as to whether McCormick challenged the spray, whether it reached him, how much was used, and whether the force was malicious rather than a good-faith effort to maintain discipline.
10. McCormick plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment vulnerability-to-suicide claim against Officer Burton.
11. Leave to amend was appropriate for the dismissed claims against the individual defendants because amendment could not be deemed futile at the screening stage, but amendment was not permitted as to the DOC because Eleventh Amendment immunity barred the claims.
12. Appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice because, although McCormick stated one potentially meritorious claim, the claim was not legally or factually complex enough at that stage to warrant counsel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether McCormick could proceed in forma pauperis.
2. Whether the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections was immune under the Eleventh Amendment from McCormick's § 1983 claims for money damages.
3. Whether the alleged observation-cell placement, prison transfers, and grievance-related conduct stated procedural or substantive due-process claims.
4. Whether the allegations stated supervisory-liability claims under § 1983 against Superintendent Rivello and Lieutenant Fochtman.
5. Whether the allegations stated a First Amendment retaliation claim.
6. Whether the allegations stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-intervene claim against Officer Renninger.
7. Whether the allegations stated an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Officer Burton based on OC spray.
8. Whether the allegations stated an Eighth Amendment vulnerability-to-suicide claim against Officer Burton.
9. Whether McCormick should receive leave to amend and appointed counsel.

Disposition

other