United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge.
Michael Makenson filed his pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding his prior confinement at the Luzerne County Correctional Facility, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. According to the docket, Makenson is presently residing in Haiti. See Doc. 35. Following service of the Complaint, the Defendants filed respective motions to dismiss.
By Memorandum and Order dated July 31, 2014, this Court granted a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Medical Director Gunnar Kosek, D.O. See Docs. 36 & 37. A motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Registered Nurse (RN) George Mrochko was granted by Memorandum and Order dated August 22, 2014. See Docs. 38 & 39.
Remaining Defendants are the Luzerne County Prison and its Acting Warden Major Larson. Presently pending is Remaining Defendants' motion to dismiss. See Doc. 14. The motion is ripe for consideration.
According to the Complaint, Makenson slipped and fell on a wet floor while en route to use a telephone during his prior incarceration at the Luzerne County Prison. Plaintiff's fall, which took place on July 8, 2013, allegedly resulted from a slippery surface caused by a leak in a wall near the phone area. Following the incident, Makenson acknowledges that he was transported to a local hospital where x-rays and an MRI were performed. Those diagnostic tests indicated that Plaintiff suffered multiple bruises to his lower back, neck, left hip and left shoulder. See Doc. 1, ¶ IV. The Plaintiff was prescribed medication for his injuries and transferred back to the prison.
On July 9, 2013, Makenson states that he refused to authorize a co-payment for his medication. As a result, the prisoner was given a disciplinary charge and purportedly subjected to a racial slur by RN Mrochko. Makenson contends that his refusal to pay for his medication, which is identified in his accompanying exhibits as being Motrin, was proper because payment should not be required "when the jail is at fault." Id . at p. 4. The Complaint seeks injunctive relief and compensatory damages.
Remaining Defendants seek entry of dismissal on the grounds that: (1) there is no viable claim that there was deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety needs; and (2) requiring an inmate to make a co-payment for medication is constitutionally acceptable. As noted earlier, the motion is unopposed.
Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must "accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Kanter v. Barella , 489 F.3d 170, 177 (3d Cir. 2007)(quoting Evancho v. Fisher , 423 F.3d 347, 350 (3d Cir. 2005)).
A plaintiff must present facts that, if true, demonstrate a plausible right to relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(stating that the complaint should include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief"); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). This requirement "calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of" the necessary elements of the plaintiff's cause of action. Id . at 556. A complaint must contain "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice." Iqbal , 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations and the complaint must state a plausible claim for relief. See id. at 1950.
"Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Twombly, at 555. The reviewing court must determine whether the complaint "contain[s] either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory." Id . at 562; see also Phillips v. County of Allegheny , 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008)(in order to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege in his complaint "enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal ...