IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JEFFREY MICHAEL FAIRLEY, : Civil No. 1:25-CV-00700 : Plaintiff, : : v. : : C.O. FERRONTI, et al., : : Defendants. : Judge Jennifer P. Wilson MEMORANDUM Before the court is a complaint filed by Jeffrey Michael Fairley (“Plaintiff”), an inmate currently housed at the State Correction Institution at Houtzdale, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Houtzdale”). (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in this action in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) The court will grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, screen the complaint pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii), dismiss all claims against Defendant Gourley, and serve the complaint on the remaining defendants. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND HISTORY Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint with the court in April of 2025. (Doc. 1.) The court received and docketed the complaint on April 21, 2025. (Id.) The complaint names five defendants: (1) Joseph Dolan (“Dolan”), Corrections Officer at SCI-Camp Hill; (2) Ferronti, Lieutenant Officer at SCI- Camp Hill; (3) Smith, Corrections Officer at SCI-Camp Hill; (4) Lowe, Corrections Officer at SCI-Camp Hill; and (5) Michael Gourley (“Gourley”), Superintendent at SCI-Camp Hill. (Doc. 1, pp. 2–3.)1 In the complaint, Plaintiff

alleges that while he was housed at SCI-Camp Hill in March of 2023 he was forcefully extracted from his cell by Defendants Dolan, Ferronti, Smith, and Lowe without cause because he needed a wheelchair. (Id., p. 4.) He alleges multiple

physical injuries resulting from force used during the cell extraction. (Id.) He alleges this cell extraction violated his Eighth Amendment rights. (Id.) On April 21, 2025, the court also received and docketed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) The court will now address the pending motion and

screen the complaint. JURISDICTION AND VENUE The court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action pursuant to

, which allows a district court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction in civil

cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Venue is proper in this district because the alleged acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred at SCI-Camp Hill in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, which is

located within this district. See

(b).

1 For ease of reference, the court uses the page numbers from the CM/ECF header. STANDARD Under

(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court “shall dismiss” an in forma

pauperis case “at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]” The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to

is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions

to dismiss. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp.,

, 109-10 & n.11 (3d Cir. 2002). In order “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). A claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

(quoting Twombly,

). Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept all well pleaded allegations as

true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Doe v. Univ. of the Scis.,

(3d Cir. 2020). The pleadings of self- represented plaintiffs are held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys and are to be liberally construed. See Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007); Higgs v. Att’y Gen.,

, 339 (3d. Cir. 2011). Self- represented litigants are to be granted leave to file a curative amended complaint

even when a plaintiff does not seek leave to amend, unless such an amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny,

(3d Cir. 2008).

DISCUSSION While Plaintiff names Gourley as a defendant in the complaint, he does not allege any action on the part of Gourley in the statement of facts. (Doc. 1.) To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must meet two threshold

requirements. He must allege: 1) that the alleged misconduct was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and 2) that as a result, he was deprived of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins,

(1988). It is also well established that “[a]

defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs to be liable, and cannot be held responsible for a constitutional violation which he or she neither participated in nor approved.” See Baraka v. McGreevey,

(3d Cir. 2007). Here, by not alleging any action on the part of Defendant Gourley, Plaintiff has not established personal involvement as required under Baraka. Any implied liability based on Defendant Gourley’s supervisory position as Superintendent at SCI-Camp Hill will also not succeed based on the facts as

alleged. Supervisory liability under § 1983 utilizes the same standard as municipal liability. See Carter v. City of Philadelphia,

(3d Cir. 1999). A supervisor will only be liable for the acts of a subordinate if he fosters a policy or

custom that amounts to deliberate indifference towards an individual’s constitutional rights. See

. To establish supervisory liability, a plaintiff must show that (1) a superior officer failed to employ a specific supervisory practice; (2) the existing custom created an unreasonable risk of injury in the

absence of the specified supervisory practice; (3) the supervisor was aware that the risk existed; (4) the supervisor was indifferent to the risk; and (5) the underlying violation resulted from the failure to employ the supervisory practice. Brown v.

Muhlenberg Twp.,

, 216 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Sample v. Diecks,

(3d Cir. 1989)). The facts set forth by Plaintiff do not address any of the factors required to establish supervisory liability. Therefore, all claims against Defendant Gourley will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal

involvement. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, dismiss all claims against Defendant Gourley, and serve the complaint on the remaining defendants. An appropriate order follows. s/Jennifer P. Wilson JENNIFER P. WILSON United States District Judge Middle District of Pennsylvania

Dated: July 7, 2025