United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
ROBERT F. KELLY, Sr., District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Defendants, Dr. Eke Kalu ("Dr. Kalu") and Dr. Bruce Blatt's ("Dr. Blatt") (collectively, the "Defendants"), Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff, Michael Mohammed Lee ("Plaintiff"), and Plaintiff's Response in opposition. For the reasons which follow, Defendants' Motion is granted.
A. The Parties
Plaintiff is an adult male resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Sec. Am. Compl. ¶ 7. At all times relevant to this litigation, Plaintiff was imprisoned at the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility ("CFCF") in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Id . Dr. Kalu is a Regional Director at Corizon Health, Inc. ("Corizon"). Id . ¶ 25. Corizon is a Delaware corporation and, at all relevant times, held a contract to provide all medical services to inmates in the Philadelphia Prison System ("PPS"), and was under the direct control and supervision of the City of Philadelphia (the "City"). Id . ¶ 20. Dr. Blatt is a medical doctor employed by Corizon. Id . ¶ 289.
B. Plaintiff's Claims
Plaintiff asserts the following allegations which occurred during his two periods of incarceration at CFCF. On September 8, 2012, while incarcerated at CFCF, he was attacked by several correctional officers after returning from a counseling session with a health professional. Id . ¶ 38. This attack caused Plaintiff injuries to various parts of his body. Id . On December 22, 2012, Plaintiff injured his knee getting off the top bunk at CFCF. Id . ¶ 44. On this same date, he made a "Sick Call Request" stating that his knee was swollen and he was in pain. Id . ¶ 45. He also made Sick Call Requests on December 23, 25 and 30, 2012, and was not given any medical treatment from December 22, 2012, through January 9, 2013. Id . ¶¶ 46-50. During that time, Plaintiff was compelled to continue sleeping on the top bunk because Corizon's medical staff would not give him a bottom bunk accommodation. Id . ¶ 51.
On January 9, 2013, Plaintiff again injured his knee getting off the top bunk. Id . ¶ 52. On January 10, 2013, Plaintiff had an x-ray taken of his left knee which revealed a knee injury. Id . ¶ 53. Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Blatt who did not provide any medical treatment for his alleged serious orthopedic injury. Id . ¶ 55. Between January 10, 2013 and February 20, 2013, Plaintiff injured his left knee several more times getting off the top bunk, and the Corizon Defendants did not allow him a bottom bunk accommodation. Id . ¶¶ 60-61. On February 20, 2013, Plaintiff made a Sick Call Request stating that he hurt his knee again getting off the top bunk and was in "bad pain." Id . ¶ 62. On April 30, 2013, an MRI of Plaintiff's left knee was conducted and showed a tear in his meniscus. Id . ¶ 63. The Corizon Defendants intentionally delayed his request to have an orthopedic consultation because of this instant lawsuit against them. Id . ¶ 67. In addition, Sarskaya failed to provide any medical treatment for his injury. Id . ¶ 68.
In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following against Dr. Kalu and Dr. Blatt:
(1) "Violations of constitutional amendments, civil rights and other federal laws" against the Corizon Defendants (Count 2). Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Blatt acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by "recklessly and deliberately indifferently failing to promptly and adequately treat" his serious medical needs; and
(2) State law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against all Defendants (Count 7).
Sec. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 97-98, 106, 118-119.
C. Procedural History
On January 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights action against Defendants Abellos, Delaney, and May. (See Doc. No. 3.) After obtaining the representation of Geoffrey Seay, Esquire, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, which this Court granted on June 12, 2013. (See Doc. Nos. 13, 16.) The subsequent Amended Complaint added eighteen Defendants, as named above, and spanned forty-nine pages with approximately two hundred and sixty-seven paragraphs. See Am. Compl. Both the Municipal and Corizon Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss and argued that the Amended Complaint failed to comport with the requirements of Federal Rule of Procedure 8. (See Doc. Nos. 19, 21.) We agreed and granted the Motions, but granted Plaintiff leave to file another Amended Complaint. (See Doc. No. 29.) Plaintiff filed a Second ...