Opinion
1:22-cv-151 Erie
02-24-2023
JOSEPH GREGORY MAISONET, Plaintiff v. ERIE COUNTY PRISON MENTAL HEALTH, et al., Defendants
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Joseph Gregory Maisonet in this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), but that Plaintiff be provided a final opportunity to amend.
II. Report
A. Standard
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 1, along with a proposed complaint. See ECF No. 1-1. Because he has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 8, Plaintiff is subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Among other things, that statute requires the Court to dismiss any action in which the Court determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Muchler v. Greenwald, 624 Fed.Appx. 794, 796-97 (3d Cir. 2015). In performing this mandatory screening function, a district court applies the same standard applied to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Banks v. County of Allegheny, 568 F.Supp.2d 579, 587-89 (W.D. Pa. 2008). Id.
B. Background
Shortly after Plaintiff initiated this action, the Court conducted an initial screening of Plaintiff's original complaint and noted that it suffered from several deficiencies. See ECF No. 5. For example, Plaintiff named three Defendants in the caption of his pleading - Erie County Prison Mental Health, Wexford Health Department, and Stairways Behavior Health - but failed to identify or attribute any conduct to those entities. Instead, Plaintiff alleged only that he passed out on the floor and hit his head on April 19, 2022, and that “[officers and nurse caused.” ECF No. 1-1 at 5. In the absence of more specific factual allegations, the Court informed Plaintiff that his proposed complaint failed to satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides, inter alia, that “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The Court advised Plaintiff that, if he wished to proceed with the action, he should file an Amended Complaint “that contains sufficient factual detail to satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” on or before August 22, 2022. ECF No. 5. The Court also offered Plaintiff some basic instructions as to what type of information a viable pleading should contain. See id.
On November 18, 2022 - almost three months past the deadline - Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.In that document, Plaintiff avers that on April 19, 2022, he passed out in front of a kiosk on the Restricted Housing Unit due to an “overwhelming amount of psych medicine.” ECF No. 7 at p. 2. Plaintiff hit his head and injured his pinky and ring fingers. Id. Plaintiff was taken for an EKG and told “to just relax.” Id. His vitals indicated that his “sugar glucose was off' and his “blood pressure imbalanced.” Id. Plaintiff maintains that this episode has caused him to experience panic attacks, fear of losing consciousness, and a general sense of terror that his food and medication is being tampered with. Id. at p. 3.
Plaintiff originally filed his Amended Complaint on November 9, 2022, but it was returned to him because it was unsigned. See ECF No. 6.
As to Defendants, Plaintiff has identified the same three entities: the Erie County Prison Mental Health Department, Wexford Health Department, and Stairways Behavior Health. Plaintiff attributes his blackout to the fact that the Mental Health Department at the Erie County Prison started him on 50 mg of Zoloft and 10 mg of Zyprexa without first providing lower doses to check for side effects before titrating to the full dose. Id. at pp. 2-3. He also avers, in conclusory fashion, that Wexford “should have properly trained the Mental Health Department or had some responsibility to control a situation” and that Stairways “should have enforced issues also for a better running system.” Id.
C. Analysis
Although Plaintiff's latest pleading contains slightly more detail than his original complaint, he has again failed to state a viable claim. As will be discussed below, the problem with his latest pleading is not that Plaintiff has provided insufficient detail as to his injury, but that he has failed to allege facts to connect that injury to an appropriate Defendant.
Because he is attempting to obtain monetary relief for an alleged violation of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must establish that “a person acting under color of law deprived him of a federal right.” Berg v. Cty. of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261, 268 (3d Cir. 2000). It is well-settled, however, that “a prison or correctional facility is not a ‘person' that is subject to suit under federal civil rights laws.” See Regan v. Upper Darby Twp., 2009 WL 650384, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2009), aff'd, 363 F. App. 917 (3d Cir. 2010) (collecting cases). See also Lenhart v. Pennsylvania, 528 Fed.Appx. 111, 114 (3d Cir. 2013) (while “[a] local governmental agency may be a ‘person' for purposes of § 1983 liability[, the county prison] is not a person capable of being sued within the meaning of § 1983”); Mincy v. Deparlos, 497 Fed.Appx. 234, 239 (3d Cir. 2012) (district court properly concluded that county prison is not “person” within meaning of section 1983). The same is true of a department within the Erie County Prison. See, e.g., Wright v. Englemeyer, 2021 WL 4786838, at *5-6 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2021) (county prison “records department” was not a “person” under § 1983). This principle is fatal to Plaintiff's claims against the Mental Health Department.
The Court notes that, unlike a county prison, a county is a legally recognized municipal entity that may be considered a person amenable to suit under § 1983. See Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Srvs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978) (establishing that municipalities and other local governmental entities may be held liable as “persons” as the term is used in § 1983). To establish liability against a county, a plaintiff must allege that his injury stemmed from “a policy, regulation, or decision officially adopted by the governing body or informally adopted by custom.” McTernan v. City of York, 564 F.3d 636, 657 (3d Cir. 2009). As discussed more fully below, Plaintiff does not allege any such policy or custom.
Although Plaintiff does not identify either of the other two Defendants, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Wexford and Stairways are private entities under contract with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to provide medical services to Pennsylvania inmates. See, e.g., Sims v. Wexford Health Sources, 635 Fed.Appx. 16 (3d Cir. 2015). To state a claim against such entities, Plaintiff must again allege the existence of a “policy, custom, or practice” that caused the alleged constitutional violation. Id. at 583-84 (“In order to hold Wexford liable [under § 1983], Sims must have alleged facts to state a claim that Wexford had a policy, custom, or practice, and that the policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation at issue.”). See alsoMonell, 436 U.S. at 694; Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 583-86 (3d Cir. 2003) (analyzing § 1983 claim against prison's medical services provider under municipal liability rubric). He has made no attempt to do so.
For each of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed, without prejudice. It is further recommended that Plaintiff be offered one additional opportunity to attempt to correct the pleading deficiencies identified in this Report. Plaintiff is advised that, if he wishes to plead a viable claim against Wexford, Stairways, or a municipality such as Erie County, he must allege facts giving rise to a plausible inference that those entities adopted a specific policy, custom, or practice that caused his injury. Plaintiff can also attempt to identify and sue the individuals who personally engaged in the unlawful conduct - in this case, the doctors and mental health professionals who treated him. Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988) (“In order to sustain a § 1983 claim against an individual acting under the color of state law, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was personally involved in the alleged violations of his or her federal rights.”). Failure to comply with these instructions will result in a recommendation that any further pleading be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF No. 7] be dismissed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), but that Plaintiff be provided an opportunity to amend his pleading within a reasonable time.
IV. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties must seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the Objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Extensions of time will not be granted. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).