The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
District Judge Nora Barry Fischer
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Dana Phillips (doc. no. 9) be denied.
Plaintiff is a pre-trial detainee confined at the Allegheny County Jail (ACJ). He commenced this action against Defendant Dana Phillips, CEO of the Medical Department of the ACJ alleging that he was denied adequate medical care in violation of the United States Constitution. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's motion should be denied.
Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) (doc. no. 9). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. In order to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 556 (2007) (rejecting the traditional 12 (b)(6) standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). The issue is not whether the plaintiff will prevail at the end but only whether he should be entitled to offer evidence to support his claim. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). The complaint must be read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and all well-pleaded, material allegations in the complaint must be taken as true. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).
Courts generally consider the allegations of the complaint, attached exhibits, and matters of public record in deciding motions to dismiss. Pension Benefit Guar. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993). Factual allegations within documents described or identified in the complaint also may be considered if the plaintiff's claims are based upon those documents. Id. (citations omitted). Moreover, a district court may consider indisputably authentic documents without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Spruill v. Gillis 372 F.3d 218, 223 (3d Cir.2004); In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997).
Finally, a court must employ less stringent standards when considering pro se pleadings than when judging the work product of an attorney. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). In a § 1983 action, the court must liberally construe the pro se litigant's pleadings and "apply the applicable law, irrespective of whether a pro se litigant has mentioned it by name." Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Holley v. Dep't of Veteran Affairs, 165 F.3d 244, 247-48 (3d Cir. 1999)). See also Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996) ("Since this is a § 1983 action, the [pro se] plaintiffs are entitled to relief if their complaint sufficiently alleges deprivation of any right secured by the Constitution.") (quoting Higgins, 293 F.3d at 688 ).
B. Plaintiff's Allegations
In a letter attached to his Complaint, Plaintiff makes the following allegations. Plaintiff was committed to the ACJ on September 28, 2008 as a pre-trial detainee. Prior to that time, in June of 2007, Plaintiff suffered a stroke. As a result, Plaintiff was examined by a neurosurgeon, Dr. Hassan Beijani, who determined that surgical intervention was necessary for a cervical cord synex (doc. no. 4, p. 5). Prior to his arrest, Plaintiff's surgery was scheduled for October 26, 2008.
On the day that he was incarcerated at the ACJ, Plaintiff informed the intake nurse of his scheduled surgery and was assured that everything would be taken care of. When his scheduled surgery date passed without any arrangements made for his surgery, he wrote numerous complaints to the medical department, including Defendant Dana Phillips, concerning his deteriorating medical condition and asking ...