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.

Darren Joseph Arnold v. Dr. Ronald Phillips

July 18, 2012

DARREN JOSEPH ARNOLD
v.
DR. RONALD PHILLIPS, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Padova, J.

MEMORANDUM

Pro se Plaintiff Darren Joseph Arnold, who was, at all relevant times, a prisoner incarcerated at the George W. Hill Correctional Facility ("GWHCF") in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various prison officials at GWHCF. Among the claims in his Third Amended Complaint (the "Complaint") is a claim that Defendants Dr. Ronald Phillips and Dr. Carl Pierce of the Medical Department at GWHCF denied him access to adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by Defendants Phillips and Pierce. For the following reasons, we grant the Motion to Dismiss and dismiss the claims against Phillips and Pierce with prejudice.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that he arrived at GWHCF on July 7, 2010. (Third Am. Compl. ("Compl.") at 9.) He first alerted the staff of his "health condition[s]," asthma and eczema, as well as his "mental health issues," "attempt suicidal," during the initial medical screening process. (Id.) In August 2010, Plaintiff went to the medical department following his arraignment video conference to "seek medical attention." (Id.) He spoke with Defendant Nurse Susan Kendra and requested to see Doctors Phillips and Pierce regarding his "emergency medical request (attempt suicide)," but Nurse Kendra denied that request. (Id.) The next month, Plaintiff requested three times, on September 5, 6 and 10, to see Phillips and Pierce with respect to his "Emergency Medical needs of Asthema [sic], Eczema, and attempt suicide thoughts," but never received any response or reply. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff also filed numerous inmate grievance forms on or before September 16, complaining of the GWHCF medical department's failure to deal with his medical needs. (Id. at 10-11.) On September 18, 2010, Plaintiff met with Defendants Dr. Lisa Tabbit and Nurse Kendra regarding his "emergency medical attention." (Id. at 11.) However, Dr. Tabbit "did not treat [his] medical needs such as asthema [sic], eczema, and suicide thoughts." (Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).) At the end of September, Plaintiff "begged and pleaded" to see Phillips and Pierce, but he received no response to these requests. (Id.)

On October 8 and 9, 2010, Plaintiff sent emergency medical requests to the medical department at GWHCF, addressed to Phillips and Pierce, regarding his asthma, eczema, and "higher thoughts of suicidal." (Id. at 12.) In mid-October, Nurse Kendra met with Plaintiff in response to the emergency medical requests addressed to Phillips and Pierce. Id. She did not, however, treat any of his health issues and refused his reiterated request to see Phillips and Pierce. (Id.) A day after their meeting, Plaintiff filed another two inmate grievance forms in which he "clearly announce[d his] need to see [the] medical department for emergency medical help (suicide)." (Id.) However, his requests were denied at that time. (Id.) Two days after that, Defendant Linda Maher, director of nursing, responded to Plaintiff's complaints, but, according to Plaintiff, she did not adequately address his medical issues and minimized their importance. (Id. at 13.) The next day, Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance form stating "Emergency - I'm going to kill myself, need to see Dr. Phillips and Dr. Pierce, I am unlawfully detained in prison. I will commit suicide," but this request was refused. (Id.) During that same week, Plaintiff filed other inmate grievance forms alleging, among other complaints, his need for emergency medical help, and again received no reply. (Id. at 14-15.) In October, Plaintiff met with Dr. Phillips, but Dr. Phillips "didn't seek [Plaintiff's] mental health of suicidal. The asthema [sic] and eczema was disclose, but there were no safety that Dr. Phillips handle." (Id. at 15.) In contrast, Plaintiff has not alleged that he ever met with Dr. Pierce.

Throughout November 2010, Plaintiff wrote various requests for medical attention to which he received no response. (Id. at 16.) Frustrated with the medical department's failure to address his medical issues, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, indicating his suicidal thoughts resulting from his wrongful conviction and the failure of the medical department at GWHCF to treat his medical issues. (Id.) Because of this letter, at the beginning of December, Plaintiff was escorted to the GWHCF's medical department and was placed on suicide watch for 48 hours.*fn1 (Id.) Not long after, however, in mid-December, Plaintiff was at the "highest point of [his] life to kill [himself]," feeling as if "there [was] nothing to live for." (Id. at 17.) He again attempted to seek medical attention for his suicidal thoughts, but his request was again denied. (Id.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), we look primarily at the facts alleged in the complaint and its attachments. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brian & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). We take the factual allegations of the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002)). Legal conclusions, however, receive no deference, and the court is "not bound the accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986) (cited with approval in Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

A plaintiff's pleading obligation is to set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), which gives the defendant "fair notice of what the. . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation omitted). The "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "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). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. In the end, we will dismiss a complaint if the factual allegations in the complaint are not sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, at 1235-36 (3d ed. 2004)).

III. DISCUSSION

Reading the Complaint liberally, it appears that Plaintiff attempts to assert a § 1983 claim against Phillips and Pierce based on their denial of medical care for Plaintiff's (a) asthma and eczema, as well as (b) suicidal thoughts. In order to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Luger v. Edmundson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 930 (1982). Section 1983 "does not, by its own terms, create substantive rights" but, rather, it merely "provides remedies for deprivations of rights established in the Constitution or federal laws." Kaucher v. Cnty. of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006).

The Eighth Amendment's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, which applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, "imposes duties on [prison] officials, who must . . . ensure that inmates receive . . . medical care, and must 'take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.'" Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526--27 (1984)). To state a claim under the Eighth Amendment for denial of medical care, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that a defendant showed "[1] deliberate indifference to [2] serious medical needs of [a] prisoner[]." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 ...


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.