United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge United States District
Tyree Tyquan Moy (“Moy”) is an inmate currently
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections
(“DOC”) who was housed at all relevant times at
the Lycoming County Prison, in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Moy commenced this action by filing complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Moy subsequently filed a
supplement to the complaint. (Doc. 8). Named as defendants
are Kevin DeParlos, Brad Shoemaker, Ryan Barnes, Harry Entz,
Kim Poorman, Mayleen Murphy, Erin Dosvack, Aisha Glover, and
Andrea Hoover (collectively, “Lycoming County
defendants”), and William Keenan, M.D. (“Dr.
Keenan”). Before the court are two Rule 12(b) motions
(Doc. 30, 31) to dismiss filed by the Lycoming County
defendants and Dr. Keenan, respectively. For the reasons set
forth below, the Lycoming County defendants' motion (Doc.
30) will be granted in part and denied in part, and Dr.
Keenan's motion (Doc. 31) will be denied.
Allegations of the Complaint
committed to the Lycoming County Prison on November 29, 2017.
(Doc. 1, at 4). Moy claims that he is allergic to onions,
someone at the prison hide onions in his food, and he
received inadequate medical treatment for an allergic
reaction to the onions. (Id. at 10). Moy also
alleges that unnamed maintenance staff at the prison sawed
metal objects, causing smoke and fire, which he inhaled.
(Id.) Moy alleges that he received inadequate
medical treatment for the smoke inhalation. (Id.)
DeParlos, in his role as Warden of the prison, was allegedly
responsible for the conduct of all defendants and operations
of the prison until May 2018. (Doc. 1, at 11; Doc. 8, at 1).
Moy alleges that defendant DeParlos denied his grievance
regarding a denial of access to the courts claim. (Doc. 8, at
5, ¶ 7).
states that defendant Shoemaker was named Warden in May 2018
and became responsible for the conduct of all defendants and
the operations of the prison from that date forward. (Doc. 1,
at 11; Doc. 8, at 1). Moy asserts that defendant Shoemaker
denied his grievance regarding a denial of access to the
courts claim. (Doc. 8, at 5, ¶ 7). Moy states that
defendant Barnes assumed the role of Deputy Warden in May
2018 and was “accountable” for all defendants.
(Doc. 8, at 1). Moy also states that defendants Shoemaker and
Barnes arrived at his cell-block after he engaged in a fight
with another inmate. (Doc. 8, at 6, ¶ 10).
alleges that defendant Entz was a first shift supervisor.
(Doc. 8, at 1). After Moy had an allergic reaction to eating
“hidden onions”, defendant Entz escorted him to
the Special Management Unit (“SMU”). (Doc. 1, at
9; Doc. 8, at 11).
alleges that, in December 2017, defendant nurse Poorman
ordered the removal of a nebulizer machine from his cell.
(Doc. 1, at 10; Doc. 8, at 2 ¶ 2). He further asserts
that all defendants were under her supervision. (Doc. 8, at 9
alleges that defendant nurse Murphy provided inadequate
medical care by denying and delaying medical treatment to
him. (Doc. 1, at 9).
January 2018, Moy claims that he choked on and spit up a
two-inch chicken bone that was hidden inside his mashed
potatoes. (Doc. 8, at 4, ¶ 5). He reported the event to
prison staff and gave staff the chicken bone. (Id.)
Defendant nurse Dosvack was the nurse at the prison that day
and Moy alleges that she did not provide any treatment to
him. (Id.) Moy further asserts that defendant
Dosvack administered eye drops to his eye through the cell
bars, and, because she was not paying attention to what she
was doing, she poked him in the eye, causing pain and
infection. (Doc. 1, at 11; Doc. 8, at 7-8, ¶ 11). Also
in January 2018, Moy alleges that defendant Dosvack provided
untimely treatment after he suffered an allergic reaction to
onions. (Doc. 1, at 10). In June 2018, after Moy had another
allergic reaction to eating hidden onions, defendant Dosvack
treated him with Benadryl, and performed an oxygen test on
him but failed to check his lungs. (Doc. 8, at 11, ¶
alleges that defendant nurse Glover provided inadequate
medical care for a swollen eye he suffered after a fight with
another inmate, and failed to send him for treatment at an
outside hospital. (Doc. 1, at 10-11; Doc. 8, at 6, ¶
10). He further alleges that she provided untimely medical
care after he had an allergic reaction to hidden onions.
alleges that defendants Poorman, Murphy, Dosvack, and Glover
administered eye drops without wearing gloves, they had dirt
and bacteria on their fingers, and had painted finger nails,
which contaminated the eye drops, causing pain, infection,
and redness. (Doc. 8, at 13, ¶ 18).
alleges that defendant Dr. Keenan was the head doctor
responsible for the actions of the prison medical staff.
(Doc. 8, at 1). He avers that Dr. Keenan denied him eye drops
that were prescribed to help heal his detached retina.
(Id. at 2).
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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).
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, 556
U.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.
Lycoming County ...