From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wheeler v. Prison Health Services, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Sep 1, 2010
CIVIL ACTION No. 09-410 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 1, 2010)

Summary

predicting the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would extend corporate negligence to a company that is responsible for inmate health care

Summary of this case from Robinson v. Corizon Health, Inc.

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION No. 09-410.

September 1, 2010


ORDER


AND NOW, this 1st day of September, 2010, upon consideration of defendants Beard and DiGuglielmo's motion to dismiss, the motion of Prison Health Services, Inc. and John Doe #1 (Richard Stefanic, M.D.), and plaintiff's responses thereto; following a conference at which all parties were present and heard, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is ORDERED that:

1. Defendants Beard and DiGuglielmo's motion to dismiss [ paper no. 31] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is GRANTED as to plaintiff's request for compensatory damages. It is DENIED without prejudice to a motion for summary judgment as to the official-capacity action for injunctive relief.
2. The motion of Prison Health Services, Inc. ("PHS") and John Doe #1 [ paper no. 32] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is GRANTED as to: (a) Count I against John Doe #1; (b) Count II in its entirety; and (c) Count III against PHS and John Doe #1. Because Count II fails as a matter of law, it shall not be reasserted in a third amended complaint. The motion is DENIED without prejudice to a motion for summary judgment as to Count I (plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim) against PHS. The motion to dismiss based on the applicable statute of limitations is DENIED without prejudice to a motion reasserting the argument against the third amended complaint.
3. Plaintiff shall have forty-five (45) days to file a third amended complaint: (a) correcting the caption by obtaining the names of the new secretary of the Department of Corrections and the new warden at SCI-Graterford; (b) substituting the John Doe defendants with properly named individuals; (c) addressing exhaustion of administrative remedies and the statute of limitations; and (d) specifying the nature of the requested prospective relief. During this forty-five (45) day period, plaintiff may conduct limited discovery regarding the identity of the John Doe defendants and the statute of limitations.


Summaries of

Wheeler v. Prison Health Services, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Sep 1, 2010
CIVIL ACTION No. 09-410 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 1, 2010)

predicting the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would extend corporate negligence to a company that is responsible for inmate health care

Summary of this case from Robinson v. Corizon Health, Inc.
Case details for

Wheeler v. Prison Health Services, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:AARON CHRISTOPHER WHEELER, Plaintiff, v. PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC.…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Sep 1, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION No. 09-410 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 1, 2010)

Citing Cases

Zehring v. Sorber

In Pennsylvania, a cognizable claim for corporate negligence arises “not from the actions of individuals, but…

Robinson v. Corizon Health, Inc.

Thus, PHS and PHS Correctional may be liable under a theory of corporate negligence."); Wheeler v. Prison…