A federal judge has dismissed a complaint by an inmate of the State Correctional Institution Houtzdale who sought protective custody because he felt his life was in danger.

The inmate, Thomas A. Howlett, 45, in October filed a civil rights lawsuit in the federal District Court in Johnstown, contending his life was in danger and that he had a right to be in protective custody because “I don’t feel safe in the general population at SCI Houtzdale.”

He explained that his insecure feeling led him to commit “misconducts” that led to his placement in the institution’s Restricted Housing Unit.

That meant he could not continue with his prison job, which paid him 42 cents an hour.

He also sought $50,000 “for the pain and all this time in the hole (the RHU).”

His lawsuit named three defendants, including those officials who denied his request for protective custody.

One of those officials allegedly had spread rumors that Howlett “told” on other inmates who had drugs in the prison.

His lawsuit was reviewed by Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto, who also presides in Johnstown.

Pesto issued a report and recommendation that the lawsuit be dismissed.

One of the complaints aired by Howlett was that the prison officials were “deliberately indifferent” to his circumstance.

The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution provides a valid claim for an inmate to sue if he is injured or can allege facts that each defendant is liable, Pesto explained.

“A defendant is deliberately indifferent only if that defendant knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety,” stated the magistrate judge.

He went on to note the complaint must state facts, not just conclusions.

Just because Howlett feels in danger does not share his view is deliberately indifferent, Pesto reasoned.

Howlett did not provide facts to indicate he was in danger and therefore his complaint is “conclusory,” meaning it has no basis in law, according to Pesto’s report and recommendation.

Howlett had 14 days to contest the recommendation by the magistrate judge.

Court records indicate he did not contest the report.

U.S. District Judge Stephanie L. Haines has now upheld Pesto’s report and dismissed Howlett’s complaint.

“Plaintiff offers no facts about why he should be fearful, nor does he allege facts that defendants should have reason to believe he should be in danger. … There is no right to protective custody per se,” Haines stated.

“The threat should be authenticated in some way known to the defendants for the defendants to act in a deliberately indifferent manner under the Eighth Amendment,” she explained.

“This Court concurs with the conclusions of the report and recommendation,” Haines stated.