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
In April 2021 plaintiff Younkin, then an inmate at S.C.I. Somerset, filed a 12-page
handwritten pro se complaint dated March 15, 2021, alleging that a defendant nurse Kelly
falsely reported, out of malice toward Younkin for an incident involving Kelly’s boyfriend,
that Younkin was not taking his psychotropic medication. This led a doctor to stop
Younkin’s prescriptions on October 8, 2020, which Younkin alleges caused aches and
pain “which drove Plaintiff to attempt suicide on 10/18/20.” Complaint ¶21. Younkin
alleged that this attempt consisted of him tying a sheet around his neck, which allegedly
caused “broke vocal cords” so that he could not speak for several days. Id., ¶12.
Upon screening of the complaint and subsequently the amended complaint as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, see 28 U.S.C.§ 1915A, I recommended that
the claim against Kelly proceed, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–105 (1976), but
that the claim against the doctor who stopped the prescription (defendant Smucker) and
the tag-along claims against the warden (defendant Tice) and medical administrator
(defendant Hyde) in their official capacities for failing to intervene in his medical care
should be dismissed. ECF no. 50. Younkin objected only to the dismissal of Smucker as a
defendant. ECF no. 52. The court has accepted my recommendation. ECF no. 89.
Defendant Kelly has already filed an answer, see ECF no. 44, so the portion of the Court’s
order directing service on her is superfluous and can be disregarded.
Younkin has already declared that he has no expert witness and contends none is
necessary. ECF no. 16. But since he contends that Kelly’s actions caused him injury he
must prove by competent evidence that a jury properly instructed in the law could find
the stopping of his prescription to be the cause of his injuries. In almost any medical
matter where causation is more complicated than trauma immediately causing broken
bones or damages to organs and tissue, expert evidence is necessary. An Estelle v. Gamble
claim usually focuses on the existence or not of evidence of a breach of care, but as this
case illustrates sometimes the dispositive issue is finding competent evidence that the
alleged breach caused the alleged injury.
Second, according to the exhibits Younkin attached to the complaint Younkin
grieved the stopping of his prescription in a grievance (#893289) filed the very evening
Case 3:21-cv-00076-SLH-KAP Document 90 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 2

2
of the stoppage on October 8, 2020. That grievance, which did not mention Kelly and
which said nothing about a malicious intent behind the stoppage, obviously preceded
Younkin’s alleged injuries by approximately two weeks. It is not clear that any grievance
was filed about Kelly’s malicious report causing the alleged suicide attempt that is the
basis for this suit or whether Younkin even brought any alleged injury to the attention of
anyone before filing a complaint in federal court. The PLRA requires the exhaustion of a
claim before filing suit, and filing an inadequate or irrelevant grievance may be
inadequate to exhaust a claim.
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f)(3) and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986),
a court has the power to issue a sua sponte order for summary judgment so long as the
parties are notified that they must come forward with all relevant evidence. And see
Gibson 	v. 	Mayor 	& 	Council 	of 	City 	of 	Wilmington, 	355 	F.3d 	215, 	224 	(3d
Cir.2004)(affirming sua sponte grant of summary judgment without notice on the
grounds that notice may not be necessary in the presence of a fully developed record, or
when the decision is based on a purely legal issue); Couden v. Duffy, 446 F.3d 483, 500
(3d Cir.2006)(affirming sua sponte grant of summary judgment to nonmoving parties).
Accordingly, I direct the parties to submit or point to the existence of all evidence
they contend shows: 1) whether in light of Younkin’s disavowal of expert testimony
Younkin can produce any competent evidence that he suffered any injury (“broke vocal
cords” in a suicide attempt on October 18, 2020) and that Kelly’s alleged actions could
plausibly be found to have caused the suicide attempt alleged by Younkin; and 2) whether
Younkin exhausted his administrative remedies as to any claim against Kelly before filing
his complaint. The parties’ responses, including any motion for relevant discovery under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d), are due February 9, 2026.
DATE: January 6, 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 90 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 2