Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ROACH v. KLIGMAN

April 30, 1976

JEROME ROACH
v.
DR. ALBERT M. KLIGMAN, individually and as President of Ivy Research Laboratories, Inc.; IVY RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC.; SOL McBRIDE, LUTHER MITCHELL, individually and as employees of Ivy Research Laboratories, Inc.; LOUIS S. AYTCH, individually and as Superintendent of Philadelphia County Prisons; ANGELO J. GALEONE, MARION SPRAGUE, ARTIS RAY, JR., RALPH RITTER, ABRAHAM NEEDLEMAN, MICHAEL J. STACK, JR., JOSEPH S. WNUKOWSKI, CHARLES CLAYTON HOLT, III, individually and in their respective capacities as members of the Board of Trustees of the Philadelphia County Prisons; and CITY OF PHILADELPHIA



The opinion of the court was delivered by: LUONGO

 This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1988, and the Fourth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The civil rights claim is joined with a claim in trespass based on Pennsylvania law. Jurisdiction is grounded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3), (4), § 1331 and pendent jurisdiction. The plaintiff, Jerome Roach, was a detentioner at Holmesburg Prison in Philadelphia when the events alleged to constitute his cause of action occurred. Plaintiff's claims against defendants Dr. Albert M. Kligman, Solomon McBride, Luther M. Mitchell and Ivy Research Laboratories, Inc. (hereinafter Ivy Research defendants) have been resolved by settlement. The remaining defendants, Louis S. Aytch, Superintendent of Philadelphia County Prisons, the individual members of the Board of Trustees of Philadelphia County Prisons (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Prison defendants), and the City of Philadelphia have moved for summary judgment. I will grant the motion for summary judgment as to the civil rights claim, and I will decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law tort claim against these defendants.

 I.

 The complaint alleges:

 In March 1973, while being detained in Holmesburg Prison awaiting trial on charges as to which he was later acquitted, Roach participated in a medical experiment conducted by Ivy Research. He was induced to participate because he needed money "to pay for minimal needs and comforts" while he was incarcerated. He was advised by one of the Ivy Research defendants that the experiment required him to take a "temperature pill" and that he would suffer no adverse effects. After four days of participation, however, Roach developed various symptoms of physical illness including sore throat, sore joints, fever, nausea, and sores and rashes. The complaint alleges further that Roach was improperly treated for these symptoms by the prison doctor who prescribed penicillin without knowing or inquiring if Roach was participating in an experiment. By March 29, 1973, Roach's condition grew serious enough for the defendants to arrange his transfer to Philadelphia General Hospital where he remained for several weeks. At the hospital, Roach was informed that his illness resulted from the experiment, that he had been given pills different from those described to him when he consented to the experiment, and that he had permanent liver damage.

 After the hospital stay, Roach spent a few days in the prison infirmary and was then returned to his cell where, "because of inadequate and unconstitutional conditions, including water in his cell which leaked through his roof and grossly inadequate medical treatment," his condition grew worse. The complaint charges that the inadequate medical treatment lasted for a period of two weeks in June of 1973 when he was denied medical treatment and medication.

 The Prison defendants and the City are said to have deprived Roach of his civil rights by authorizing Ivy Research to use the facilities at Holmesburg without adequate safeguards to insure that Roach gave informed consent to the experiment, and by failing to provide adequate facilities to screen, monitor and treat the plaintiff to avoid serious illness from the experiment. Moreover, Prison defendants are charged with having coerced Roach into participating in the experiment by failing to furnish him and other inmates the "basic, minimal needs and necessities for institutional life," or to afford alternative opportunities to earn money to provide these necessities for themselves. Finally, Roach complains that Prison defendants failed to provide adequate treatment and quarters after he became ill from the experiment.

 In short, Roach claims that his civil rights were violated by Prison defendants in the following way:

 1. Prison defendants failed to supply the "minimal needs and necessities for institutional life" or alternative sources of income to provide these needs for himself. This coerced him into participating in the experiment.

 2. The experiment was so negligently monitored by Prison defendants that when he became ill during the experiment, the prison doctor did not know he was participating in the experiment and treated him improperly, causing aggravation.

 3. When he returned from PGH, he was subjected to "inadequate and unconstitutional cell conditions," which caused further aggravation.

 4. On at least a few occasions he was denied medical treatment after returning from PGH.

 5. Finally, there are allegations of conspiracy and malice.

 Roach's pendent claim sets forth the same facts, which he contends render Prison defendants liable in trespass.

 II.

 In this circuit, plaintiffs in civil rights cases must plead facts with specificity, especially where the pleadings, as here, are drafted by competent and experienced counsel. *fn1" Rotolo v. Borough of Charleroi, 532 F.2d 920 (3rd Cir. 1976). The plaintiff cannot rest on vague, conclusory allegations. He must plead the facts upon which the claim is based; he must spell out the unlawful conduct complained of.

 When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported by affidavits, plaintiff may not rest upon "the mere allegations or denials of his pleading," he must by affidavits or otherwise, set forth specific facts showing there is a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.