Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moy v. Deparlos

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

September 5, 2019

KEVIN DEPARLOS, et al., Defendants


          Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge United States District Court

         Plaintiff 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[1] (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.

         I. Allegations of the Complaint

         Moy was 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.)

         Defendant 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).

         Moy 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).

         Moy 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).

         Moy 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 ¶ 14).

         Moy alleges that defendant nurse Murphy provided inadequate medical care by denying and delaying medical treatment to him. (Doc. 1, at 9).

         In 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, ¶ 16).

         Moy 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. (Id.)

         Moy 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).

         Moy 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).

         II. Legal Standard

         Rule 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).

         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, 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.

         III. Lycoming County ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.