IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EDWARD MAJOR, ) Plaintiff, V. Case No. 1:21-cv-68-SPB-RAL DR. HALLIGAN, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiff Edward Major commenced this pro se civil rights action on January 28, 2021
with the filing of his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted on
February 4, 2021. ECF No. 1, 3.. Plaintiffs fifty-one page handwritten complaint was filed of
record that same date. ECF No. 6. In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts several claims under 42
U.S.C. §1983 against the following Defendants: (i) “Dr. Halligan, Medical Physician, SCI
Albion”; (ii) “Michael J. Edwards, Registered Nurse, SCI Albion”; (iii) “LT. Oches, R.H.U. Lt.,
SCI Albion”; (iv).“Paul Ennis, Deputy Superintendent, SCI Albion”; (v) “M. Clark, Facility Manager, SCI Albion”; (vi) “John Doe, Respondent Lieutenant, SCI Albion”; (vii) “Ericson, SDU Unit Manager, SCI Fayette”; (viii) “P. Harney, Mailroom Staff, SCI Fayette”; and (ix) “William Nicholson, Health Care Administrator, SCI Greene.” The case has been referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo for pretrial proceedings in accordance with
the Magistrate Judge’s Act, 28 U.S.C. §636, and Local Civil Rule 72. On June 29, 2021, defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on behalf of
all Defendants except for “John Doe,” whose identity has not yet been ascertained, and Dr.
Halligan, who has not yet been served with the complaint. ECF Nos. 18, 19, 20. Plaintiff
responded to the motion on August 4, 2021, ECF No. 35, and Defendants filed their reply on
August 9, 2021. ECF No. 37. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a plethora of unsolicited documents, including various exhibits, supplements and correspondence. See ECF Nos. 38, 39, 42, 44, 45,
47, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 60. November 17, 2021, Judge Lanzillo issued an R&R in which he recommended that
the moving Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. ECF No. 63.
Objections to the R&R were due on or before December 6, 2021.
In the weeks that followed Judge Lanzillo’s issuance of the Report and Recommendation,) —
Plaintiff again submitted a series of documents which have been variously docketed by the Clerk
as correspondence, exhibits, objections, a motion for an extension of time, and requests for
appointment of counsel. ECF No. 64-69. Given the ever-burgeoning case docket in this civil
action and Plaintiffs apparent confusion about his responsibilities as a pro se litigant, the Court |
deems it prudent to make several observations and render the following admonitions.
First, Plaintiff is advised that, at this stage of the proceedings, his claims are being
evaluated based solely on the allegations that are set forth in his complaint. His claims are not
presently being evaluated based upon the sufficiency of supporting evidence that may exist in the
form of extraneous documentation. Therefore, it is not incumbent upon Plaintiff at this point to
prove his claims through the filing of various exhibits. Although courts may consider documents
outside of the complaint at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage if they are integral to the plaintiff's claims,
see In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997), Magistrate
Judge Lanzillo has opined that, in this case, none of Plaintiffs extraneous filings can be fairly
characterized as integral to his pleading. See ECF No. 63 at 10. This Court concurs.
For this reason, it is not appropriate at the present juncture for the Court to involve itself
in disputes over lost or missing records, as those issues are extraneous to the claims set forth in
Plaintiffs complaint and whether they are legally sufficient, not factually sufficient. In his
correspondence to the Clerk, Plaintiff repeatedly voices concern about certain records or exhibits
that were allegedly lost by prison officials. Because the Court is presently concerned only with
the sufficiency of Plaintiff's complaint, it is premature for the Court to address such matters.
The Court must first determine whether Plaintiff has pled any potentially viable claims. If □□ has
done so (or if he can do so through an amended complaint), a period of discovery will follow
during which time the Court can address any issues Plaintiff may have concerning lost
evidentiary items. Alternatively, if Plaintiff believes that his civil rights have been violated as a
result of these events, he may assert such claims in a separate civil action.
Similarly, to the extent Plaintiff raises concerns in his various filings about prison
officials who are not named as Defendants in this lawsuit, those issues are irrelevant for present
purposes because they have no bearing on the sufficiency of Plaintiff's claims. Insofar as
Plaintiff is requesting the Court to direct prison officials to respond to Plaintiff's various
administrative grievances, the undersigned declines to do so because federal courts do not have
jurisdiction over the state prison grievance process. The Court next observes that Plaintiff has ostensibly filed “objections” to the Report and | -
Recommendation, which are more in the nature of a running factual commentary about his
various grievances. At the same time, however, Plaintiff has also requested additional time to
submit what would presumably be more well-researched objections. Although the Court is
amenable to granting Plaintiff additional time to conduct legal research that may bear on his objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Court also notes that nearly one month has
passed since the original deadline for filing objections. Therefore, a further 60-day extension of | ~
time (as set forth in Plaintiff's December 1, 2021 filing, ECF No. 65), is unwarranted.
Next, the Court notes that a portion of the Report and Recommendation is devoted to
Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment §1983 claim against Defendant Halligan, who has not yet been
served with a copy of the complaint. As reflected on the docket, the U.S. Marshal has twice
attempted to mail a copy of the complaint to Defendant Halligan at addresses provided by Plaintiff on two separate USM-285 forms; however, on both occasions, the mailings have been
unsuccessful because Defendant Halligan is apparently no longer present at the addresses
supplied by Plaintiff. See ECF Nos. 26, 33, 49. Since service has not yet been effectuated on
Defendant Halligan (and also has not been waived by her), Plaintiff's pending motion for a
default judgment against Defendant Halligan is premature and will be denied without prejudice.
At the same time, however, based upon information set forth in Plaintiffs December 1, 2021
filing, ECF No. 65, the Court finds that Plaintiff has thus far proceeded in good faith and has
established good cause for his past inability to effectuate service. Therefore, the Court will grant
an additional extension of time for service, as set forth below. Insofar as Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel, his motions will be denied for
the reasons previously expressed by Judge Lanzillo in his Order dated July 19. 2021, ECF No.
[24]. The Court finds that no material change in circumstances has occurred since the issuance
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EDWARD MAJOR, ) Plaintiff, V. Case No. 1:21-cv-68-SPB-RAL DR. HALLIGAN, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiff Edward Major commenced this pro se civil rights action on January 28, 2021
with the filing of his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted on
February 4, 2021. ECF No. 1, 3.. Plaintiffs fifty-one page handwritten complaint was filed of
record that same date. ECF No. 6. In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts several claims under 42
U.S.C. §1983 against the following Defendants: (i) “Dr. Halligan, Medical Physician, SCI
Albion”; (ii) “Michael J. Edwards, Registered Nurse, SCI Albion”; (iii) “LT. Oches, R.H.U. Lt.,
SCI Albion”; (iv).“Paul Ennis, Deputy Superintendent, SCI Albion”; (v) “M. Clark, Facility Manager, SCI Albion”; (vi) “John Doe, Respondent Lieutenant, SCI Albion”; (vii) “Ericson, SDU Unit Manager, SCI Fayette”; (viii) “P. Harney, Mailroom Staff, SCI Fayette”; and (ix) “William Nicholson, Health Care Administrator, SCI Greene.” The case has been referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo for pretrial proceedings in accordance with
the Magistrate Judge’s Act, 28 U.S.C. §636, and Local Civil Rule 72. On June 29, 2021, defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on behalf of
all Defendants except for “John Doe,” whose identity has not yet been ascertained, and Dr.
Halligan, who has not yet been served with the complaint. ECF Nos. 18, 19, 20. Plaintiff
responded to the motion on August 4, 2021, ECF No. 35, and Defendants filed their reply on
August 9, 2021. ECF No. 37. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a plethora of unsolicited documents, including various exhibits, supplements and correspondence. See ECF Nos. 38, 39, 42, 44, 45,
47, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 60. November 17, 2021, Judge Lanzillo issued an R&R in which he recommended that
the moving Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. ECF No. 63.
Objections to the R&R were due on or before December 6, 2021.
In the weeks that followed Judge Lanzillo’s issuance of the Report and Recommendation,) —
Plaintiff again submitted a series of documents which have been variously docketed by the Clerk
as correspondence, exhibits, objections, a motion for an extension of time, and requests for
appointment of counsel. ECF No. 64-69. Given the ever-burgeoning case docket in this civil
action and Plaintiffs apparent confusion about his responsibilities as a pro se litigant, the Court |
deems it prudent to make several observations and render the following admonitions.
First, Plaintiff is advised that, at this stage of the proceedings, his claims are being
evaluated based solely on the allegations that are set forth in his complaint. His claims are not
presently being evaluated based upon the sufficiency of supporting evidence that may exist in the
form of extraneous documentation. Therefore, it is not incumbent upon Plaintiff at this point to
prove his claims through the filing of various exhibits. Although courts may consider documents
outside of the complaint at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage if they are integral to the plaintiff's claims,
see In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997), Magistrate
Judge Lanzillo has opined that, in this case, none of Plaintiffs extraneous filings can be fairly
characterized as integral to his pleading. See ECF No. 63 at 10. This Court concurs.
For this reason, it is not appropriate at the present juncture for the Court to involve itself
in disputes over lost or missing records, as those issues are extraneous to the claims set forth in
Plaintiffs complaint and whether they are legally sufficient, not factually sufficient. In his
correspondence to the Clerk, Plaintiff repeatedly voices concern about certain records or exhibits
that were allegedly lost by prison officials. Because the Court is presently concerned only with
the sufficiency of Plaintiff's complaint, it is premature for the Court to address such matters.
The Court must first determine whether Plaintiff has pled any potentially viable claims. If □□ has
done so (or if he can do so through an amended complaint), a period of discovery will follow
during which time the Court can address any issues Plaintiff may have concerning lost
evidentiary items. Alternatively, if Plaintiff believes that his civil rights have been violated as a
result of these events, he may assert such claims in a separate civil action.
Similarly, to the extent Plaintiff raises concerns in his various filings about prison
officials who are not named as Defendants in this lawsuit, those issues are irrelevant for present
purposes because they have no bearing on the sufficiency of Plaintiff's claims. Insofar as
Plaintiff is requesting the Court to direct prison officials to respond to Plaintiff's various
administrative grievances, the undersigned declines to do so because federal courts do not have
jurisdiction over the state prison grievance process. The Court next observes that Plaintiff has ostensibly filed “objections” to the Report and | -
Recommendation, which are more in the nature of a running factual commentary about his
various grievances. At the same time, however, Plaintiff has also requested additional time to
submit what would presumably be more well-researched objections. Although the Court is
amenable to granting Plaintiff additional time to conduct legal research that may bear on his objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Court also notes that nearly one month has
passed since the original deadline for filing objections. Therefore, a further 60-day extension of | ~
time (as set forth in Plaintiff's December 1, 2021 filing, ECF No. 65), is unwarranted.
Next, the Court notes that a portion of the Report and Recommendation is devoted to
Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment §1983 claim against Defendant Halligan, who has not yet been
served with a copy of the complaint. As reflected on the docket, the U.S. Marshal has twice
attempted to mail a copy of the complaint to Defendant Halligan at addresses provided by Plaintiff on two separate USM-285 forms; however, on both occasions, the mailings have been
unsuccessful because Defendant Halligan is apparently no longer present at the addresses
supplied by Plaintiff. See ECF Nos. 26, 33, 49. Since service has not yet been effectuated on
Defendant Halligan (and also has not been waived by her), Plaintiff's pending motion for a
default judgment against Defendant Halligan is premature and will be denied without prejudice.
At the same time, however, based upon information set forth in Plaintiffs December 1, 2021
filing, ECF No. 65, the Court finds that Plaintiff has thus far proceeded in good faith and has
established good cause for his past inability to effectuate service. Therefore, the Court will grant
an additional extension of time for service, as set forth below. Insofar as Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel, his motions will be denied for
the reasons previously expressed by Judge Lanzillo in his Order dated July 19. 2021, ECF No.
[24]. The Court finds that no material change in circumstances has occurred since the issuance
of Judge Lanzillo’s Order that would warrant the appointment of counsel at this time, consistent
with Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993). The denial of Plaintiffs requests for
counsel is without prejudice, however, and Plaintiff may renew his request at a later stage of
these proceedings, should future circumstances so watrant.
Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff's continuous stream of unsolicited filings has thus
far significantly and unnecessarily complicated the administration of this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff is advised that, moving forward, any unsolicited filings will not be considered by this
Court unless they are in the form of a motion setting forth a specific request for relief. Gratuitous
submissions of exhibits, “supplements,” correspondence, and other matters will not be addressed
or considered by this Court. Based upon all of the foregoing considerations, the following Order is entered:
NOW, this 4th day of January, 2022, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. [65]) for an extension of time within which to file
supplemental objections to the Magistrate Judge’s November 17, 2021 Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. [63], is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff's supplementa
objections shall be due on or before February 14, 2022. Any responses to Plaintiff s
original and/or supplemental obj ections shall be due on or before February 28, 2022.
2. Plaintiffs requests for appointment of counsel, as set forth in his filings docketed on
December 1, 2021, ECF No. [65], and December 6, 2021, ECF No. [66], are DENIED
without prejudice to be reasserted at a later point in these proceedings, should future
circumstances so warrant. 3. Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against Defendant Halligan, ECF No. [59], is
DENIED without prejudice as premature, as service has not yet been effectuated on (or
waived by) Defendant Halligan. 4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), and for good cause shown, the period
for effectuating service upon Defendant Halligan shall be extended to February 15, 2022.
ITISSO ORDERED.
St. Lu Se ieee VAD AACLD: AA □□□□ SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER United States District Judge
em: EDWARD MAJOR LX6754 © SCI Fayette 50 Overlook Drive LaBelle, PA 15450 (via U.S. mail, First Class) Counsel of Record (via CM/ECF) United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo (via CM/ECF)