United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM
JAMES
M. MUNLEY, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff
Derek Arrington (“Arrington” or
“Plaintiff”), at all times relevant an inmate
incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary at Canaan,
Waymart, Pennsylvania, commenced this
Bivens[1] action on May 10, 2016. (Doc. 1).
Arrington names the following defendants: Warden Charles
Maiorana (“Maiorana”), Nurse Carey Rhea
(“Rhea”), and “URC Medical Staffs.”
Presently
pending is Defendants Maiorana and Rhea's Motion (Doc.
18) to Dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and for Summary Judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the reasons that
follow, the motions will be granted. Also pending is
Arrington's Motion (Doc. 28) for Leave to Re-file Amended
Complaint, which will be denied based on the dispositions of
the motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. Defendant
“URC Medical Staff” will be dismissed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Finally,
Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 30) for appointment of counsel
will be denied.
I.
Motion to Dismiss
A.
Standard of Review
Defendant
Maiorana seeks to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) provides for
the dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). 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)). Although the court is
generally limited in its review to the facts contained in the
complaint, it “may also consider matters of public
record, orders, exhibits attached to the complaint and items
appearing in the record of the case.” Oshiver v.
Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384
n. 2 (3d Cir. 1994); see also In re Burlington Coat
Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997).
Federal
notice and pleading rules require the complaint to provide
“the defendant notice of what the . . . claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests.” Phillips v. Cty.
of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). To test the sufficiency of the complaint in the face
of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must conduct a
three-step inquiry. See Santiago v. Warminster
Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130-31 (3d Cir. 2010). In the
first step, “the court must ‘tak[e] note of the
elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim.'”
Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 675 (2009)). Next, the factual and legal elements of a
claim should be separated; well-pleaded facts must be
accepted as true, while mere legal conclusions may be
disregarded. Id.; see also Fowler v. UPMC
Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009). Once the
well-pleaded factual allegations have been isolated, the
court must determine whether they are sufficient to show a
“plausible claim for relief.” Iqbal,
556U.S. at 679 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556);
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (requiring plaintiffs to
allege facts sufficient to “raise a right to relief
above the speculative level”). 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.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
B.
Pertinent Allegations of the Complaint
Arrington
alleges that he had surgery in his right knee in 2011, and
that upon transfer to USP Canaan, Dr. Mowatt and Defendant
Rhea “conducted their medical performance, counseling,
evaluation and check-up.” (Doc. 1, p. 7, ¶ 11). He
sought medical treatment on January 8, 2016, due to severe
pain, swelling, and occasional locking in his right knee.
(Id. at ¶ 12). He continued to seek medical
treatment over the course of the next several months from
Defendant Rhea and “URC Medical staffs.”
(Id. at pp. 7-11, ¶¶ 10-23).
He
alleges that Defendant Maiorana as the “warden of USP
Canaan is legally responsible for the operation of this
Federal Prison and for the welfare of all the inmates.”
(Doc. 1, p. 5, ¶ 4). He contends that that
“[a]cting with sufficient culpability and deliberate
indifference the defendants denied, delayed, and disregarded
Plaintiff's serious medical needs and excessive risk to
his safety and health…[d]enying and to provide a MRI,
Operation, and Procedure as requested by Plaintiff and Carey
Rhea, PA-C exacerbated his swelling and locking right knee
which he has to bear severe pain and unbearable
comfort.” (Id. at p. 6, ¶ 8). He alleges
that he experienced a “long delay” in
consideration of his grievances and that Defendant Maiorana
denied his grievance and required him to wait for a review by
the Regional Medical Director. (Id. at p. 8, ¶
16; p. 10, ¶¶ 20, 23, p. 13, ¶¶ 31, 32).
C.
Discussion
A
Bivens action is “the federal equivalent of
the § 1983 cause of action against state actors.”
Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 800 (3d
Cir.2001); see also Tavarez v. Reno, 54
F.3d 109, 110 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (noting
that “federal courts have typically incorporated §
1983 law into Bivens actions” because
“the two actions share the same practicalities of
litigation.”). Section 1983 offers private citizens a
cause of action for violations of federal law by state
officials. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute
provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or
the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress. . . .
Id.; see also Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536
U.S. 273, 284-85 (2002); Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d
1199, 1204 (3d Cir. 1996). Accordingly, to establish a claim
for relief under Bivens, a plaintiff must
demonstrate: (1) that the conduct was committed by a federal
actor, and (2) that conduct resulted in the deprivation of a
right secured by the ...