Darryl Debnam v. D. Eckenrode, Food Service Manager, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed Darryl Debnam's pro se civil rights complaint alleging that prison food-service workers failed to train him to use cooking equipment and caused or contributed to burn injuries. The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation and Pennsylvania intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, adopted the recommendation to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and overruled the plaintiff's objections. The court granted leave to file an amended complaint within twenty days, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim because Debnam did not identify constitutionally protected activity, an adverse action, or facts showing that protected conduct was a motivating factor in a disciplinary decision.
2. The complaint failed to state a Pennsylvania intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because it did not allege conduct sufficiently extreme and outrageous to satisfy the tort's threshold requirement.
3. The district court granted Debnam leave to file an amended complaint because the additional allegations in his objections suggested that his Eighth Amendment claim might have merit, and amendment was not shown to be futile or inequitable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether the complaint stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim based on the alleged failure to train Debnam and the alleged requirement that he continue working after his injury.
3. Whether the complaint stated a Pennsylvania claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
4. Whether Debnam could amend his complaint after the district court dismissed it for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

dismissed