United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Daniel Ranieri filed a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and a complaint against Dr. R. Phillips, who
the complaint identifies as the Medical Director at the
George W. Hill Correctional Facility (GWHCF). The instant
civil action is the second lawsuit plaintiff has filed in
this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the
medical care he received-or lack thereof-during the course of
his recent incarceration at GWHCF. For the following reasons,
the Court will grant plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss the complaint with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
complaint reflects that the events giving rise to plaintiffs
claims took place from April 15, 2015 through December 4,
2015, and February 12, 2016 through May 10, 2016, during his
incarceration at GWHCF. Plaintiff alleges that, although
prison officials at GWHCF were aware that he has hepatitis C,
he was never given treatment, which caused him to develop
cirrhosis of the liver. He also alleges that he was
transferred from GWHCF to another facility "without any
medication cold turkey, " which nearly killed him.
(Compl. at 6-A.) Plaintiff adds that he was given five
different pills daily "without having been diagnosed for
why [he] was given them, " and that Dr. Phillips and his
staff were responsible for ordering those medications.
(Id. at 3.) Plaintiff indicates that he wrote
several grievances to Dr. Phillips and the Warden, but never
received a response.
filed this lawsuit approximately five weeks after the Court
dismissed his previously-filed lawsuit, Ranieri v.
Byrne, E.D. Pa. Civ. A. No. 16-2686. The complaint in
Civil Action Number 16-2686 raised claims pursuant to §
1983 against Warden David Byrne and the "Medical
Director for George W. Hill Correctional Facility." The
complaint challenged the adequacy of medical care that
plaintiff received at GWHCF from April 15, 2015 through May
10, 2016-the length of his incarceration. Plaintiff alleged
that the defendants failed to treat his hepatitis C for most
of his incarceration, failed to transfer his medical records
to another prison in Delaware, treated him for conditions he
did not have, and only took action when he experienced life
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and the Court held
a hearing on the motion. After considering the complaint,
other documents plaintiff filed in the case, and statements
that plaintiff made at the hearing, the Court concluded that
plaintiff at most established dissatisfaction with the level
of care at GWHCF rather than the defendants' deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. The Court also
concluded that amendment would be futile and dismissed all of
plaintiff s claims against the Warden and Medical Director in
their entirety. The complaint and attachments to the
complaint in the instant case, Civil Action Number 17-1705,
acknowledge the dismissal of plaintiff s complaint in Civil
Action Number 16-2686.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court grants plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis because it appears that he is incapable of
paying the fees to commence this civil action. Accordingly,
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) require the Court
to dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim. "[A] district court may dismiss
a complaint as malicious if it is plainly abusive of the
judicial process or merely repeats pending or previously
litigated claims." Brodzki v. CBS Sports, Civ.
A. No. 11-841, 2012 WL 125281, at *1 (D. Del. Jan. 13, 2012).
As plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court
construes his allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y
Gen., 655F.3d333, 339(3dCir. 2011).
apparent that the complaint in this case raises the same
claims that the Court dismissed in Civil Action Number
16-2686. If plaintiff disagreed with the Court's
dismissal of his claims, he could have filed an appeal. He
may not, however, initiate a new civil action to circumvent
the dismissal of his first complaint. See Walton v. Eaton
Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 71 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc)
("[T]he court must insure that the plaintiff does not
use the incorrect procedure of filing duplicative complaints
for the purpose of circumventing the rules pertaining to the
amendment of complaints."); Sendi v. NCR Comten,
Inc., 624 F.Supp. 1205, 1207 (E.D. Pa. 1986)
("[T]he fact that plaintiff was denied leave to amend
does not give him the right to file a second lawsuit based on
the same facts."). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss
the complaint because it duplicates previously litigated
foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss the complaint as
duplicative, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Plaintiff will not be given leave to amend because amendment
would be futile. An appropriate order follows.