YOUNKIN v. TICE et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PAUL YOUNKIN, 	:
Plaintiff 	:
v. 	: Case No. 3:21-cv-76-SLH-KAP
SUPERINTENDENT ERIC TICE, et al., 	:
Defendants 	:
Memorandum Order
Plaintiff Younkin’s motion to compel discovery at ECF no. 92 is denied.
In April 2021 Younkin filed a 12-page handwritten pro se complaint dated March
15, 2021 in which Younkin alleged that due to the false report of a nurse (defendant Kelly)
that Younkin was not taking his medication a doctor (defendant Smucker) stopped his
psychotropic medication on October 8, 2020. Younkin alleges that this caused him to
suffer aches and pain “which drove Plaintiff to attempt suicide on 10/18/20,” Complaint
¶21. Attached to that complaint was a partial grievance history for Grievance No. 893289,
which grievance Younkin filed on October 8, 2020, and which ended with a final decision
on February 22, 2021.
Younkin sued Kelly and Smucker in their individual and official capacities for
denying him medical care, as well as the warden (Tice) and medical administrator (Hyde)
in their official capacities for failing to intervene in his medical care. After I screened the
complaint and amended complaint and the Court ruled on Younkin’s objections, what was
left was an Estelle v. Gamble claim that Kelly caused the denial of health care to Younkin
for nonmedical reasons. Specifically, Younkin alleged that Kelly falsely told Smucker that
Younkin was noncompliant with his medication to retaliate against Younkin for a
grievance against a corrections officer whom Younkin considered Kelly’s boyfriend.
Kelly asserts the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Because Grievance No. 893289 does not mention Kelly, says nothing about a malicious
intent behind the stoppage, and preceded Younkin’s alleged injuries by approximately
two weeks, I issued an order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f)(3) and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 326 (1986) for the parties to come forward with all evidence relevant to
exhaustion. I also ordered production of any evidence relevant to Younkin’s ability to
prove, after disclaiming any need for an expert, that any alleged injury to him was caused
by the stoppage of any medication on October 8, 2020.
In response Younkin filed the motion to compel at ECF no. 92, also asking to
extend the time to respond to my order. The motion to compel refers to Younkin’s request
for production of documents from May 2022, attached as an exhibit to ECF no. 63, and
Case 3:21-cv-00076-SLH-KAP Document 93 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 2

2
asserts that defendants never responded to that request. That request for production was
pending while the Court considered which parties should be in the case, so the reason it
has not been responded to yet is clear. As relevant to my Celotex order, the request for
production in ¶1 asks for Younkin’s “complete prison record,” a request so vague and
overbroad it is not clear how Kelly could answer it, and in ¶¶ 2-8 asks for material that
does not pertain to Younkin’s grievance history, but arguably could be relevant to the
causation of Younkin’s alleged injury.
The chief question I have directed the parties to answer is whether this matter
presents any genuine issue of fact whether Younkin exhausted his administrative
remedies. Younkin clearly did not identify Kelly or alert anyone to the assertion in his
complaint that Kelly’s animus drove the improper stoppage of his medication in
Grievance No. 893289. Because Grievance No. 893289 preceded Younkin’s alleged
injuries by approximately two weeks, it cannot possibly have exhausted Younkin’s
administrative remedies.
Therefore, either Younkin filed another grievance that did exhaust his claim
against Kelly or continuing this litigation is a waste of judicial resources. To decide which
is the case is the point of my Celotex order. To streamline this matter to its simplest, the
parties shall adhere to my February 9, 2026 deadline, addressing only the question of
exhaustion of remedies. The parties need not address at this time whether there is any
evidence to show that there is a genuine issue of fact as to the causation of any injury.
DATE: January 29, 2026
Keith A. Pesto,
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to counsel by ECF and by U.S. Mail to:
Paul Younkin LM-8784
S.C.I. Smithfield
1120 Pike Street
Huntingdon, PA 16652
Case 3:21-cv-00076-SLH-KAP Document 93 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 2