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.

Betrand v. Dep't of Corrections

October 6, 2009

GEORGE BETRAND PLAINTIFF,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: James F. McClure, Jr. United States District Judge

(Judge McClure)

MEMORANDUM

I. Introduction

This pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Pa. C.S.A. § 6600, and the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution was initiated by plaintiff George Betrand in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County. On May 11, 2007, the action was removed to this Court. Plaintiff Betrand has named as defendants the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC"); Prison Health Services, Inc. ("PHS"), a corporation that provides medical services to the DOC; Robert Shannon, Superintendent at State Correctional Institution at Frackville ("SCI Frackville"); Health Care Administrator Barbara G. Malewski; B.L. Tritt, Assistant to the Superintendent; and Nurse Donna Jones.

II. Procedural History

In his complaint, Betrand asserts that the above-named defendants violated his rights due to the manner in which his insulin shots for Type II Diabetes were administered at SCI Frackville. (Rec. Doc. No. 6 at 16-18).

After the matter was removed to federal court, defendant PHS filed a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2007. (Rec. Doc. No. 3). On June 14, 2007, PHS filed a brief in support of its motion to dismiss. (Rec. Doc. No. 4). The DOC, Shannon, Malewski, Tritt, and Jones ("Corrections Defendants") filed a demand for a trial by jury and a motion to dismiss accompanied by a brief in support thereof on July 10, 2007. (Rec. Doc. Nos. 8-10). Plaintiff Betrand responded in opposition to the Corrections Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Rec. Doc. Nos. 12-13). However, Betrand did not respond to PHS's motion to dismiss. (Rec. Doc. No. 15 at 1-2).

On March 18, 2008, this Court granted in part and dismissed in part the Corrections Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Rec. Doc. No. 14). We allowed the complaint against the Corrections Defendants to proceed concerning "any claim that they were responsible for the implementation of a policy or custom which violated Plaintiff's right to privacy." (Id. at 14). In addition, we also held in abeyance the question as to whether we would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Betrand's surviving state law claims against defendants Jones and Malewski.

Id.

On March 20, 2008, this Court granted in part and dismissed in part PHS's motion to dismiss. (Rec. Doc. No. 15). In this Court's order, we allowed to proceed Betrand's "claim that [PHS] implemented a policy or custom which violated Plaintiff's right to privacy." Id. at 12-13. In addition, we held in abeyance the question as to whether we would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Betrand's state law claims. Id. at 13.

On April 8, 2008, PHS filed an answer to Betrand's complaint. (Rec. Doc. No. 16). After granting the Corrections Defendants' motion for an enlargement of time (see Rec. Doc. No. 18), the Corrections Defendants filed their answer on May 2, 2008 (Rec. Doc. No. 19).

On May 16, 2008, this Court granted Corrections Defendant's motion to depose Betrand. (Rec. Doc. No. 22).

The Corrections Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on February 6, 2009. (Rec. Doc. No. 25). With their motion, the Corrections Defendants also filed a brief in support and a statement of facts, pursuant to Local Rule 56.1. (Rec. Doc. Nos. 26 and 27). After this Court granted PHS an extension of time, PHS filed a motion for summary judgment on February 24, 2009. (Rec. Doc. No. 31). With its motion, PHS also filed a brief in support and a statement of facts, pursuant to Local Rule 56.1. (Rec. Doc. Nos. 32 and 33).

Betrand, on March 27, 2009, filed an opposition brief. (Rec. Doc. No. 36). However, Betrand did not file a separate statement of facts in response to defendant PHS's statement of facts as required by Local Rule 56.1.

III. Factual Background

Taken in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, plaintiff Betrand, the salient facts are as follows.*fn1 Plaintiff George Betrand has been an inmate at SCI Frackville since 2004. In addition, Betrand has Type II diabetes, which he was diagnosed with in 2002. Prior to 2007, when Betrand began taking medication in pill form for his diabetes, Betrand was given two insulin shots a day. Beginning on or about August ...


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.