Lopez v. Wetzel

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GEORGE LOPEZ, : Civil No. 3:21-CV-1819 : Plaintiff, : : (Judge Mehalchick) v. : : JOHN WETZEL, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) : Defendants : __________________________________________________________________ DARIEN HOUSER, : Civil No. 3:24-CV-603 : Plaintiff, : : (Judge Mehalchick) v. : : JOHN WETZEL, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) : Defendants :

__________________________________________________________________ GERALD WATKINS, : Civil No. 3:24-CV-604 : Plaintiff, : : v. : : JOHN WETZEL, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) : Defendants : __________________________________________________________________ RALPH STOKES, : Civil No. 3:24-CV-605 : Plaintiff, : : v. : : JOHN WETZEL, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) : Defendants :

__________________________________________________________________

JOSE UDERRA, : Civil No. 3:24-CV-606 : Plaintiff, : : v. : : JOHN WETZEL, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) : Defendants :

__________________________________________________________________

RICHARD A. POPLAWSKI, : Civil No. 3:24-CV-607 : Plaintiff, : : v. : : JOHN WETZEL, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) : Defendants : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: These pro se prisoner civil rights actions were originally brought as a single lawsuit by six inmates held by the Department of Corrections challenging what they allege was unconstitutionally prolonged and severe solitary confinement by corrections staff. (Doc. 1). According to the plaintiffs they have suffered severe

emotional and psychological injuries due to this prolonged solitary confinement. (Id.) However, a review of the plaintiffs’ complaint reveals that these alleged instances of solitary confinement occurred at different places and times over the past two decades. (Id.) Further, the complaint asserts that each individual prisoner

plaintiff suffered from distinct emotional impairments which were exacerbated in different ways by their confinement. (Id.) Thus, factually these six plaintiffs have claims that involved disparate acts and actors which have had different and distinct

impacts upon their lives. The defendants have moved for a stay of proceedings as they consider whether to pursue a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, seeking further review of Roy Lee Williams v. Secretary of Pennsylvania

Department of Corrections, 117 F.4th 503 (3dCir. 2024), a Third Circuit ruling which denied a defense claim of qualified immunity in a factually similar case. The plaintiffs are ORDERED to respond to these stay motions on or before January 3, 2025. The movants may then file reply briefs on or before January 17,

2025. So ordered this 11th day of December 2024. S/Martin C. Carlson Martin C. Carlson United States Magistrate Judge