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.

MITCHELL v. CHESTER CTY. FARMS PRISON

December 30, 1976

RICHARD A. MITCHELL , Plaintiff
v.
CHESTER COUNTY FARMS PRISON, AND THOMAS G. FRAME, individually and as Warden of the Chester County Farms Prison, Pocopson, Pennsylvania AND PHILIP E. KISTLER, M.D., individually and as Medical Doctor of Chester County Farms Prison, Pocopson, Pennsylvania AND SERGEANT COONEY (first name unknown), individually and as "Medical Officer" of Chester County Farms Prison, Pocopson, Pennsylvania AND DR. DONTON (first name unknown), individually and as "Counselor" for Chester County Farms Prison, Pocopson, Pennsylvania AND JOHN DOE and RICHARD DOE, (actual names unknown), individually and as Guards of Chester County Farms Prison Pocopson, Pennsylvania



The opinion of the court was delivered by: DITTER

 The principal question raised by this motion to dismiss is whether the failure, either negligent or intentional, by the staff of a state prison facility to provide medication to an inmate for the control of his epileptic condition presents a claim cognizable under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and its jurisdictional counterparts, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

 Thereafter, plaintiff made constant requests for medication, but none was supplied to him until the evening of June 18. Although he took it immediately, on June 19, 1973, plaintiff lost consciousness and fell to a cement floor, where he struck his head. Guards and inmates thereupon came to his assistance, and placed a stick in his mouth to prevent him from swallowing his tongue. Mitchell was rushed in a prison truck to Chester County Hospital. He was treated in the emergency room for an epileptic seizure, released, and returned to the prison. Thereafter, throughout the duration of his incarceration in that institution, until August 2, 1973, prison authorities provided his medication.

 Plaintiff avers that as a direct result of defendants' negligent or intentional failure to furnish him with medication from June 15 to June 18, he suffered severe mental, emotional, and physical anguish culminating in the violent epileptic seizure which required emergency medical treatment. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, each in excess of $10,000., and costs.

 Defendants' motion to dismiss takes three basic tacks: First, they contend that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that his allegations consist of bare conclusory statements not involving the denial of any Constitutional rights. Secondly, they argue that liability under Section 1983 cannot be imposed upon the defendant prison, because it is not a "person," or upon any named defendants since, in their view, plaintiff has failed to allege any personal involvement on their behalf and the doctrine of respondeat superior is inapplicable under that section. Finally, defendants posit that plaintiff has alleged no pattern of behavior which would justify an award of punitive damages.

 Since 1970, this Circuit has recognized that "where an inmate's complaint of improper or inadequate medical treatment depicts conduct so cruel or unusual as to approach a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of such punishment . . . a colorable constitutional claim is presented [footnote omitted]." Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1, 6 (3d Cir. 1970).

 The Supreme Court very recently has confirmed the vitality of cases such as Gittlemacker and elaborated on the standard to be applied:

 
We therefore conclude that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain," Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at, 96 S. Ct. at 2925, proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. This is true whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed. Regardless of how evidenced, deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious illness or injury states a cause of action under § 1983.
 
This conclusion does not mean, however, that every claim by a prisoner that he has not received adequate medical treatment states a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
 
. . .

 Defendants argue that absent an allegation that their conduct was repetitious or arbitrary and capricious, the actions complained of are insufficient to "shock the conscience." I disagree. In the first place, the allegations of the complaint plainly portray a course of conduct by means of which one or more defendants deprived plaintiff of sorely needed medication in a fashion that may well be characterized as arbitrary and capricious. Cf. Freeman v. Lockhart, 503 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1974); Dewell v. Lawson, 489 F.2d 877 (10th Cir. 1974). Secondly, my recent decision in Walnorch v. McMonagle, 412 F. Supp. 270 (E.D. Pa. 1976), completely disposes of the argument that to give rise to a civil rights claim the behavior of the defendants need be more "repetitious" than that alleged here. *fn3" In that case I held that an allegation of deliberate failure by prison guards to allow plaintiff access to medical treatment for a period of three days raised a cognizable claim under the Civil Rights Act. Id. at 276-77. In relevant respects, the present case is very nearly on all fours with Walnorch and the result I reach is likewise the same. *fn4" See also Thompson v. Montemuro, 383 F. Supp. 1200 (E.D. Pa. 1974). Under the teachings of Estelle and the other cited cases the course of conduct alleged, would, if proven, plainly support the imposition of liability on those responsible.

 On behalf of the defendants it is also contended that plaintiff's allegations are insufficiently precise to state a claim under Sections 1983 and 1985. See Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270, 1275 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 846, 91 S. Ct. 93, 27 L. Ed. 2d 84 (1970). However, even a cursory reading of the complaint here demonstrates that its allegations, both with ...


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.