Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Raynard Memminger v. Mccf

June 18, 2012


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Caldwell


I. Introduction

Raynard Memminger, an inmate at the Monroe County Correctional Facility (MCCF), in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, filed this pro se civil rights action alleging that prison officials are being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by improperly monitoring and treating his diabetes. Memminger names MCCF as the sole defendant. Along with his complaint, he has filed two applications to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 2 and 6).

Based on the request to proceed in forma pauperis, the Complaint is before the court for preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In screening the Complaint, we will grant Memminger's motions to proceed in forma pauperis but dismiss MCCF from the action. Plaintiff will be allowed to amend his complaint to identify those individuals who have allegedly violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him adequate medical care for his diabetes.

II. Background

Memminger, a 48-year-old diabetic, is presently housed at MCCF. (Doc. 1, Compl.) Immediately upon his arrival at MCCF he complained to prison medical officials that he was not receiving the Lantus brand insulin he used prior to incarceration. He was told that "this ain't burger king you don't have things your way." Id. A week later his blood sugars started to drop and he experienced repeated episodes of hypoglycemia. His continued requests for Lantus insulin, rather than the less expensive brand they are giving him, were denied. He is concerned that the mismanagement of his diabetes will destroy his kidneys.

Memminger also alleges that Donna Sutton, a nurse at the facility, fails to dispense his insulin in a sanitary manner. She allegedly fails to wipe the rubber top of the insulin bottle with an alcohol swab prior to drawing his insulin, and on at least one occasion, she gave him insulin with a "dirty needle." When Memminger voiced these concerns to Nurse Sutton, she told him "to take this f----in' needle and get out of here." Id. Memminger admits to cursing back at her, a declaration Corrections Officer Guzman overheard. Officer Guzman and Nurse Sutton wrote Memminger up for the abusive language and he was placed in "the hole" for seven days. Id.

Memminger notes that Officer Guzman was later fired for having "the keys on him" when he went outside "to take a smoke". Id. He also states that MRSA, a skin disease, is "going around" MCCF and he is concerned that the lack of proper handling of his diabetic supplies and medications by prison staff will result in his contracting MRSA.

Memminger does not specify if he seeks monetary or injunctive relief.

III. Standard of Review

A complaint filed in forma pauperis may be dismissed if it is determined that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In deciding whether the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, the court employs the standard used to analyze motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). Under Rule 12(b)(6), we must "accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008)). While a complaint need only contain "a short and plain statement of the claim," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and detailed factual allegations are not required, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964, 167 L.Ed.2d. 929 (2007), a complaint has to plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 at 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929. Rule 8 demands "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. at 1965). "[L]abels and conclusions" are not enough, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65, and a court "'is not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.'" Id., 127 S.Ct. at 1965 (quoted case omitted).

Finally, we note that pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys and are to be liberally construed. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 322 (3d Cir. 2009). Pro se litigants are to be granted leave to file a curative amended complaint even when a plaintiff does not seek leave to amend, unless such an amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Phillips, 515 F.3d at 245-46 (citing Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004)). However, a complaint that sets forth facts which affirmatively demonstrate that the plaintiff has no right to recover is properly dismissed without leave to amend. Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d 103, 106 (3d Cir. 2002).

IV. Discussion

To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must plead two essential elements: (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Natale v. Camden County Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 580-81 (3d Cir. 2003). Personal involvement in the alleged wrongs is necessary for the imposition of liability in a civil rights action. Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2005); Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236, 249-50 (3d Cir. ...

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.