United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
RICHARD CAPUTO United States District Judge
before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss Mr.
Anderson's Amended and Supplemental Complaint. The
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) defendants have
filed separate motions to dismiss addressing the Amended
Complaint and the Supplemental Complaint,  while T. Parkes
(Corizon employee) has filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. All motions have been briefed and are ripe for
reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Defendants'
motions to dismiss the Amended and Supplemental Complaints.
August 18, 2014, Mr. Anderson filed his original Complaint in
this matter against fourteen defendants who worked at two
different correctional facilities: SCI-Camp Hill and
SCI-Huntingdon. The majority of the defendants were employed
by the DOC, while others were employed by Corizon Medical
Services (Corizon), the contract medical care providers at
SCI-Huntingdon. (ECF No. 1, Compl.)
March 30, 2016, the Court granted in part, and denied in
part, the DOC and Corizon defendants' motions to dismiss.
See ECF Doc. 51. In the Order, Mr. Anderson was
specifically advised as to which claims were dismissed with
prejudice and those he could reassert in an amended
complaint. (Id., pp. 29 - 30.) The following claims
were dismissed as time barred as they accrued prior to August
18, 2012: (1) all claims against the SCI-Camp Hill defendants
(J. Ditty; PA Dieburt; T. Henry; K. Moore; and I. Taggart) as
Mr. Anderson was transferred to SCI-Huntingdon on August 30,
2011; (2) pre-August 18, 2012, claims related to the release
of Plaintiff's medical records (I. Taggart; K. Jackson;
C. Stubler; and C. Green); (3) Eighth Amendment medical
claims concerning the scheduling of an October 2011
orthopedic consult, physical therapy or an MRI (M. Showalter;
C. Boozel; and T. Parkes); (4) Eighth Amendment claims
related to Grievance 407311 concerning his knee injury (C.
Green; M. Showalter; Supt. Bickell; and C. Boozel) and (5)
any pre-August 18, 2012 claims related to Mr. Anderson's
receipt of a bottom bunk/bottom tier status (PA Riscigno).
(Id., pp. 11 - 17.)
Anderson's post-August 18, 2012 claim that K. Jackson, or
any other defendant, violated his Eighth Amendment rights by
denying him access to his medical records was dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim. (Id., pp. 20
following post-August 18, 2012, claims were subject to
dismissal without prejudice and thus were permitted to be
re-plead: (1) Eighth Amendment medical claims against Supt.
Bickell, M. Showalter, C. Green, C. Stubler, PA Riscigno, C.
Boozel and T. Parkes “for events that accrued between
August 18, 2012 and August 18, 2014.” (Id.,
pp. 17 and 27); (2) Plaintiff's access-to-courts claim
against Librarian Jeshonek; and (3) Plaintiff's Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim against the SCI-Huntingdon
Boozel, a Corizon employee, sought dismissal of the Complaint
based on improper service. (ECF No. 20.) His motion was
denied (ECF No. 51, pp. 24 - 25) after it was noted that the
Court, not Plaintiff, was responsible for any errors in
service. (Id., p. 25.) Nonetheless, all claims
against C. Boozel were dismissed as time-barred. Mr. Anderson
was advised C. Boozel would be served with a copy of the
amended complaint, if warranted, after the Court screened it
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Anderson was granted twenty-one days to file an amended
complaint. (Id., p. 30.) He was then granted an
enlargement of time to file his amended complaint. (ECF No.
55.) After he failed to file an amended complaint or seek
additional time to do so, the Court closed the case. (ECF No.
56.) After Mr. Anderson indicated his amended complaint was
either lost or delayed in the mail, the matter was reopened.
(ECF No. 63.)
21, 2016, Mr. Anderson filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No.
64) and a Supplemental Complaint (ECF No. 64-1), and
sixty-four pages of supporting exhibits (ECF No.
Allegations of the Amended and Supplemental
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 64)
as Defendants are the following DOC Defendants: Supt.
Bickell; K. Nicole (previously identified as Kerri Moore); C.
Green, Unit Manager Hollibaugh; M. Showalter; acting Supt. J.
Eckard; B. Jeshonek and Father Wireman. The following Corizon
employees are named: C. Boozel; K. Jackson; T. Parkes; M.
McConnell; M. Gomes and P. Price.
Anderson arrived at SCI-Camp Hill on April 5, 2011 to
commence serving his state sentence. (ECF No. 64, p. 2.) In
July 2011, while at SCI-Camp Hill, he fell injuring his back,
right wrist and knee. (Id., ¶ 14.)
August 30, 2011, Mr. Anderson was transferred to
SCI-Huntingdon. (Id.) Upon his arrival he advised
medical staff that he was a diabetic and was suffering from
pain from his July fall. (Id., ¶ 15.) On
September 25, 2012, Mr. Anderson underwent corrective surgery
for his wrist injury. (ECF No. 64, ¶ 17 and ECF No.
64-2, p. 31.) Two days later, “because he did not get a
medical lay-in, ” Mr. Anderson was “forced”
to return to work in the kitchen “under penalty of
receiving a misconduct.” (Id.; ECF No. 64-2,
pp. 33 - 34.) Consequently he re-injured his wrist. (ECF No.
64, ¶ 17.) He was then placed on medical lay-in until
cleared by his doctor. (ECF No. 64-2, p. 33.) In response to
his inquiry, CHCA Showalter advised Mr. Anderson he would not
receive “lay-in” pay as his injury was not work
related. (Id., p. 34.) Mr. Anderson was cleared for
“light duty” work on November 7, 2012.
(Id., p. 35.) Although prescribed Percocet by his
physician, prison staff provided him Tylenol 3, which was
“cut off” on November 10, 2012. (Id.) On
November 27, 2012 his medication was reordered.
(Id.) In January or February 2013, Mr. Anderson
underwent a second corrective surgery to his wrist.
(Id., p. 4.)
all of this time, ” Mr. Anderson complained of blurred
vision, back and knee pain. (ECF No. 64, ¶ 18.) He
“is a diabetic and was refused insulin for over 3
years” as well as a “correct diabetic
diet.” (Id., ¶¶ 23 - 24.) His
elevated triglyceride levels were ignored by medical staff
for “well over a year.”
September 2013, Mr. Anderson requested to be seen by a
physician rather than a physician assistant because the
“physician assistant only switch [his] medication
constantly with no results” on his high sugar and
triglycerides. (ECF No. 64-2, p. 23.) He disagrees with the
physician assistant's statement that he is a
“borderline diabetic.” (Id.) CHCA Price
advised Mr. Anderson to sign up for sick call to schedule an
appointment with a physician. (Id.)
January 24, 2014, Mr. Anderson wrote to CHCA Price asking to
be seen by a physician because a physician assistant had
changed his insulin resulting in higher sugar levels.
(Id., p. 24.) He advised CHCA Price that he
“wishes only to be seen by the doctor about [his] sugar
and triglycerides.” (Id.) CHCA Price advised
Mr. Anderson to sign up for sick call to schedule an
appointment with the physician. (Id.)
Anderson claims he has not received proper treatment for a
torn meniscus in his right knee. (ECF No. 64, ¶ 19.) Mr.
Anderson has held a bottom bunk/bottom tier housing
designation, at the request of SCI-Huntingdon medical staff,
due to right knee pain “possible meniscus tear”
and later bilateral “degenerative knee joints”
since March 2012. (ECF No. 64-2, pp. 47 - 48, 50 - 52, 55.)
He has received knee braces or sleeves as early as August
2012. (Id., pp. 53 -54, 56 - 62.) Mr. Anderson
alleges that once given the bottom bunk/bottom tier
designation, he “cannot go beyond the first floor of
any building inside the prison, you are not permitted to
climb stairs”. (ECF No. 64, ¶ 21.) Any violation
of this restriction subjects him to “receiving a
law library is on the second floor of the institution.
(Id., ¶ 28.) The chapel is located on the
fourth floor. (Id., ¶ 25.) Although
“medically restricted, ” Mr. Anderson is forced
make the painful trek to the upper floors of the institution
to access religious, psychological, school, dental, parole,
and psychiatric services. (Id., ¶ 22.) He
claims that SCI-Huntingdon's failure to provide these
services for “disabled, restricted, disability, and
handicap inmates” on the ground level is
Anderson was continually advised that if he felt his medical
issues prevented him from accessing areas of the institution,
he should address his concerns with the medical department.
(ECF No. 64-2, pp. 19 - 22.) He was also advised that
“accommodations are made on individual basis for
inmates who need it.” (Id., p. 21.) In June
2013, Superintendent Bickell advised Mr. Anderson that the
DOC's Central Office Inmate Disability Accommodations
Committee had reviewed, and denied, his request for “an
accommodation in accordance with DC ADM 006 Reasonable
Accommodations for Inmates and Disabilities” after
determining that his “medical condition does not rise
to the level of a disability.” (ECF No. 64-2, p. 49.)
August 2012 through 2015, Mr. Anderson worked in
SCI-Huntingdon's kitchen. (Id., p. 63.) He
claims that because religious services and law library are
both open Sunday morning at the same time, he is forced to
chose between foregoing his religious practices or using the
law library to access the courts. (ECF No. 64, ¶ 25.) On
January 4, 2013, Mr. Anderson requested to be scheduled for
the law library on Mondays. For scheduling reasons he was
given a Wednesday afternoon appointment. He then wrote to the
library staff advising them that because of his work schedule
he only has Sunday and Monday off. (ECF No. 64-2, p. 36.) As
such, he needs to be scheduled for the law library on Monday
morning and afternoon as he “can't go on Sunday
(religion).” (Id.) He was then scheduled for
Monday. Mr. Anderson advised the library staff that he works
“Tuesday through Saturday in the morning and Thursday
is [his] commissary day and [he has] to go to commissary in
the afternoon because [he] work[s] on Thursday
morning.” (Id., p. 37.) He complained that
staff scheduled him for “whatever day [they chose]
instead of giving [him] the day [he] requested.”
(Id.) Staff replied that he could not dictate
library scheduling and that where his scheduled time
conflicts with his work, school or programming schedule he
should advise staff. (Id.)
8, 2013, Mr. Anderson's request to be placed on the
Tuesday morning law library list was denied due to lack of
available space. He was advised that he could be scheduled
for another day. (Id., p. 40.) His May 17, 2013,
request to be scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday mornings so
he could go to library with someone who was helping him on a
pro se appeal was also denied. (Id., p. 41.)
However, he was scheduled for Friday morning that week and
advised there were legal aides to assist him. (Id.)
After Mr. Anderson advised library staff he worked Friday
mornings, he was scheduled for a Tuesday evening slot.
(Id., p. 42.) Mr. Anderson then wrote to law library
staff asking “[h]ow hard is it to put a person on a
call-out for the exact day and time they request?”
(Id.) He sought to be removed from the Tuesday night
list and placed on the Tuesday and Wednesday morning list.
(Id.) Staff advised him that the time he requested
was full and he was scheduled for law library time
“according to your work, programs, or school ... but
specific days can not always be scheduled.”
(Id.) In June 2013 Mr. Anderson requested that his
Tuesday night law library slot be switched to Tuesday and
Wednesday mornings. His request was denied as those time
slots were filled. (Id., p. 44.)
August 20 and 21, 2013, Mr. Anderson's law library
appointments were cancelled by staff after he failed to show
for his scheduled law library times on August 13 and 14,
2013. (Id., p. 45.) He claims he missed these
scheduled times because he had medical appointments. Library
staff asked Mr. Anderson to have medical staff verify this
information. (Id.) Mr. Anderson missed his law
library appointment on January 10, 2014 because he had a
tooth pulled and his law library appointment on January 16,
2014, because he had the flu. (Id., p. 46.) As
requested by Mr. Anderson, CHCA Price confirmed this
information for him to show the law library staff.
January 2015, Mr. Anderson advised law library staff that his
work schedule had changed. His previous days off were
“Thursday and Friday” but now were “Tuesday
and Wednesday”. (Id., p. 38.) He requested
staff to change his scheduled time in the law library.
(Id.) He was then scheduled for Tuesday evening and
Thursday morning. (Id.) Later that week he wrote to
staff asking to switch his scheduled library time and has a
court deadline to meet. (Id., p. 39.) Library staff
scheduled him for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evening
“until your deadline 2/9/15.” (Id.)
Mr. Anderson claims Ms. Hollibaugh, his Unit Manager, does
not assist him to resolve issues but refers “all of his
grievances to the grievance coordinator until after he filed
this lawsuit.” (ECF No. 64, ¶ 26.)
Mr. Anderson alleges that he has unsuccessfully tried to
receive a copy of his medical records since his arrival at
SCI-Huntingdon in August 2011. On December 12, 2013 he
requested a copy of his medical and mental health records be
sent to Angus Love, Esquire, of the PA Institutional Law
Project. (ECF No. 74, p. 6.) K. Jackson witnessed his
completion of the appropriate records request form but Mr.
Anderson claims he has yet to receive the records. Defense
counsel in this case, in response to Mr. Anderson's
discovery request for his medical records, made them