Daniel Andrews, Sr. v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Court
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Importance
48%
Case Summary
DLD-073 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 24-2885 ___________ DANIEL RUSSELL ANDREWS, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; J. SPYKER, Correctional Coordinator Program Manager-SCI-Huntingdon; CO III GRASSMIRE; CO III MCCLOSKY; MS. HAMMON, Library Assistant; CO I FRYE; ELLENBERGER, Hearing Examiner; CONNIE GREENE, Grievance Coordinator; CO V HOUSE ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00077) District Judge: Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 January 30, 2025 Before: RESTREPO, FREEMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: June 10, 2025) _________ OPINION* _________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 PER CURIAM Daniel Russell Andrews, Sr., appeals the District Court’s September 26, 2024 order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.1 In the evening of January 17, 2020, Daniel Andrews, then incarcerated at Pennsylvania’s State Correctional Institution – Huntingdon, got into a verbal altercation with another prisoner, Guy Bicking. According to Andrews, this altercation occurred after Andrews requested help with a word processing program in the law library, to which an agitated Bicking responded by “offering [Andrews] his genitals,” loudly telling Andrews to perform a sexual act, and threatening to “f*** [Andrews] up.” A report filed by the only staff member to witness the altercation, Assistant Librarian Harmon, contradicted Andrews’ version of events, omitted any mention of the sexual threat, and instead reported that Andrews had threatened Bicking with a beating. After leaving the library, Andrews filed a complaint against Bicking under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”) with Lieutenant Maxwell. The next day, Andrews was interviewed by Lt. Grassmyer2 and Program Manager Spyker regarding his complaint. Around the time of this interview, another corrections officer, Frye, overheard Andrews state “if he does that shit again I’m going to beat his 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4. 2 As the District Court’s order granting summary judgment noted, Andrews’ documents spell defendants Grassmyer and McCloskey as “Grassmire” and “McClosky,” respectively. 2 ass,” prompting Frye to file a misconduct report. A subsequent investigation by Grassmyer and Spyker found that Andrews was the aggressor in the conflict with Bicking, based on review of the security footage, and the misconducts issued by Hammon and Frye. The misconduct was upheld on all levels of appeal, and Andrews was sentenced to a total of 60 days in restricted housing. After exhausting the prison grievance process, Andrews filed a timely complaint in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the named state actors had violated his constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.3 Andrews’ operative amended complaint alleged that the named defendants had violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by conspiring to file false misconducts against him and denying his disciplinary appeals and grievances, in part to cover for Hammon’s failure to promptly report the incident, but also in retaliation for his filing a PREA report against Bicking. He further alleged that Hammon had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect him from Bicking, and that Major House had violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by ruling against him in misconduct hearings and sentencing him to a term in restricted housing.4 3 Andrews was subsequently transferred to SCI-Frackville on June 14, 2022. 4 Andrews’ amended complaint also attempted to
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
DLD-073 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-2885
___________
DANIEL RUSSELL ANDREWS,
Appellant
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; J. SPYKER, Correctional
Coordinator Program Manager-SCI-Huntingdon; CO III GRASSMIRE; CO III
MCCLOSKY; MS. HAMMON, Library Assistant; CO I FRYE; ELLENBERGER,
Hearing Examiner; CONNIE GREENE, Grievance Coordinator; CO V HOUSE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00077)
District Judge: Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 30, 2025
Before: RESTREPO, FREEMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 10, 2025)
_________
OPINION*
_________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
1
PER CURIAM
Daniel Russell Andrews, Sr., appeals the District Court’s September 26, 2024
order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We will summarily affirm the
District Court’s order.1
In the evening of January 17, 2020, Daniel Andrews, then incarcerated at
Pennsylvania’s State Correctional Institution – Huntingdon, got into a verbal altercation
with another prisoner, Guy Bicking. According to Andrews, this altercation occurred
after Andrews requested help with a word processing program in the law library, to
which an agitated Bicking responded by “offering [Andrews] his genitals,” loudly telling
Andrews to perform a sexual act, and threatening to “f*** [Andrews] up.” A report filed
by the only staff member to witness the altercation, Assistant Librarian Harmon,
contradicted Andrews’ version of events, omitted any mention of the sexual threat, and
instead reported that Andrews had threatened Bicking with a beating. After leaving the
library, Andrews filed a complaint against Bicking under the Prison Rape Elimination
Act (“PREA”) with Lieutenant Maxwell.
The next day, Andrews was interviewed by Lt. Grassmyer2 and Program Manager
Spyker regarding his complaint. Around the time of this interview, another corrections
officer, Frye, overheard Andrews state “if he does that shit again I’m going to beat his
1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4. 2 As the District Court’s order granting summary judgment noted, Andrews’ documents spell defendants Grassmyer and McCloskey as “Grassmire” and “McClosky,” respectively.
2
ass,” prompting Frye to file a misconduct report. A subsequent investigation by
Grassmyer and Spyker found that Andrews was the aggressor in the conflict with
Bicking, based on review of the security footage, and the misconducts issued by
Hammon and Frye. The misconduct was upheld on all levels of appeal, and Andrews was
sentenced to a total of 60 days in restricted housing.
After exhausting the prison grievance process, Andrews filed a timely complaint
in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the named state actors had violated
his constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.3 Andrews’ operative amended
complaint alleged that the named defendants had violated his First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights by conspiring to file false misconducts against him and denying his
disciplinary appeals and grievances, in part to cover for Hammon’s failure to promptly
report the incident, but also in retaliation for his filing a PREA report against Bicking. He
further alleged that Hammon had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to
protect him from Bicking, and that Major House had violated his Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights by ruling against him in misconduct hearings and sentencing him to a
term in restricted housing.4
3 Andrews was subsequently transferred to SCI-Frackville on June 14, 2022. 4 Andrews’ amended complaint also attempted to
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools