Opinion
Civil Action 23-1243
06-05-2024
MELISSA EDMONDS, Plaintiff, v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.
Re: ECF No. 14
Joy Flowers Conti, District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff s Complaint, ECF No. 14, be dismissed sua sponte, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), for failure to state a claim. Out of an abundance of caution, Plaintiff should be given leave to file an amended complaint.
II. REPORT
A. Factual and Procedural Background
Melissa Edmonds (“Plaintiff') was, at the time of filing of this action, confined at the Allegheny County Jail (“ACJ”) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It is unclear from the record whether she was held there as a pre-trial detainee, or as a convicted prisoner. On July 10, 2023, this Court received Plaintiffs Complaint, without a filing fee or motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 1. Due to irregularities with the Complaint, Plaintiff was ordered to provide additional information indicating whether she wished to proceed in this Court, or the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff eventually responded in September 2023, and indicated that she wanted her case heard in federal court. ECF Nos. 4 and 5.
An order directing Plaintiff to correct various filing deficiencies (the “Deficiency Order”) was issued on September 19, 2023. ECF No. 6. Since then, Plaintiff has moved for leave to proceed IFP. ECF No. 8. Additionally, she has been released from ACJ. ECF No. 12.
As of the date of this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has never fully complied with the Deficiency Order, nor with an Order to Show Cause that was entered on December 15, 2023. ECF Nos. 6 and 10. However, because her release from custody obviated the need to correct the remaining filing deficiencies, leave to proceed IFP was granted on May 22, 2024. ECF No. 13.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she contracted food poisoning on May 10, 2023, while held at ACJ. ECF No. 14 at 2. She acknowledges that she was taken to Pod 5B when she requested treatment, and concedes that “[t]he dr. [sic] took me out and gave me several medications & IV fluids” in response to her symptoms. Id. at 2.
The Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, government website indicates that “doctors are based on the 5B housing unit, which functions as the jail's in-house emergency room and hospital. Doctors make daily rounds for individuals incarcerated on 5B and respond to sick calls on other housing units as needed.” https://www.alleghenycounty.us/Govemment/County-Jail/Inmate-Information/Inmate-Medical-Care (last visited June 5, 2024).
B. Applicable Legal Standard
28 U.S.C. § 1915 establishes the criteria for allowing an action to proceed IFP. Section 1915(e) requires the federal courts to review complaints filed by persons that are proceeding in forma pauperis and to dismiss, at any time, any action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 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)(B). Thus, a court must dismiss, sua sponte, a complaint that lacks arguable merit in fact or law. Stackhouse v. Crocker, 266 Fed.Appx. 189, 190 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)).
The standard for reviewing a complaint under Section 1915(e)(2)(B) is the same as that for determining a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999); see also Banks v. Mozingo, No. 08-004, 2009 WL 497572, at *6 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2009). Under that Rule, dismissal is appropriate if, reading the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and accepting all factual allegations as true, no relief could be granted under any “reasonable reading of the complaint” Phillips v. Cnty, of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008). A complaint must be dismissed even if the claim to relief is “conceivable,” because a plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp, v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
A court must employ less stringent standards when considering pro se pleadings than when judging the work product of an attorney. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). In a Section 1983 action, a court must liberally construe a pro se litigant's pleadings and “apply the applicable law, irrespective of whether a pro se litigant has mentioned it by name.” Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Holley v. Dep't of Veteran Affairs, 165 F.3d 244, 247-48 (3d Cir. 1999)). “Since this is a § 1983 action, the [pro se] plaintiffs are entitled to relief if their complaint sufficiently alleges deprivation of any right secured by the Constitution.” Higgins, 293 F.3d at 688 (quoting Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996)). That said, it is not proper for a court to assume that “the [plaintiff] can prove facts which [he or she] has not alleged, or that the defendants have violated the . . . laws in ways that have not been alleged.” Assoc.'d Gen Contractors of California, Inc, v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). A court further need not accept inferences drawn by a plaintiff if they are unsupported by the facts as set forth in the complaint. See California Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys, v. Chubb Corp., 394 F.3d 126, 143 and 157-58 (3d Cir. 2004).
Finally, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that, in civil rights cases, a court must give a plaintiff the opportunity to amend a deficient complaint - regardless of whether the plaintiff requests to do so - when dismissing a case for failure to state a claim, unless doing so would be inequitable or futile. See Fletcher-Harlee Corp, v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2007).
C. Legal Analysis
Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that she contracted food poisoning on May 10, 2023. ECF No. 14 at 2. She acknowledges that she was taken to Pod 5B when she requested medical treatment, and concedes that “[t]he dr. [sic] took me out and gave me several medications & IV fluids” in response to her symptoms. Id. at 2.
Prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1978). Presuming that Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the time of filing, her claim arises under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Hope v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 325 (3d Cir. 2020) (“Although the Eighth Amendment does not apply here... the substantive due process guarantees afforded detainees [] are at least as robust as Eighth Amendment protections afforded prisoners [.]” (internal citations omitted). “[U]nder the Due Process Clause, a detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-36 (1979).
But Plaintiff's allegation of a single instance of food-poisoning - while no doubt unpleasant - does not state a claim for a constitutional violation. Duran v. Merline, 923 F.Supp.2d 702, 720 (D.N.J. 2013) (collecting cases). Wilson v. A. Cnty. J. Facility, No. CV209523, 2022 WL 1486022, at *2 (D.N.J. May 11, 2022) (same).
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief with respect to the medical care that she received stemming from her bout of food poisoning, constitutional medical care claims brought by pretrial detainees are analyzed “under the [same] standard used to evaluate similar claims brought under the Eighth Amendment.” Mattern v. City of Sea Isle, 657 Fed.Appx. 134, 138 n.5 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 582 (3d Cir. 2003)). See also Ginyard v. Del-Prete, No. 20-1947, 2021 WL 3476601, at *3 (W.D. Pa. July 9, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 3472150 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 6, 2021). See also Ginyard v. Del-Prete, No. 22-3213, 2023 WL 3967906, at *1 n.l and *4 (3d Cir. June 13, 2023) (applying the deliberate indifference standard to a Fourteenth Amendment pre-trial detainee medical claim). This requires Plaintiff to allege (1) a serious medical need; and (2) prison officials' acts or omissions indicating deliberate indifference to that need. Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192,197 (3d Cir. 1999). Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's medical needs includes “where prison authorities deny reasonable requests for medical treatment... and such denial exposes the inmate ‘to undue suffering or the threat of tangible residual injury,”' Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir. 1987) (quoting Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 (6th Cir. 1976)), and when medical care is intentionally not provided even when the need for it is known. Id. (citing Ancata v. Prison Health Servs., 769 F.2d 700, 704 (11th Cir. 1985)).
Here, presuming that Plaintiff suffered from a serious medical need, but see Jackson v. Shouppe, No. 17-1135, 2020 WL 3574645, at *10 (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2020) (food poisoning may not qualify as a serious medical need), Plaintiff has not alleged deliberate indifference. To the contrary. Plaintiff explicitly concedes that she received timely medical attention for her illness when she requested it. ECF No. 14 at 2-3. This is not deliberate indifference.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs Complaint, ECF No. 14, should be dismissed. However, out of an abundance of caution, dismissal should be without prejudice to filing an amended complaint to include specific factual averments that support a claim of deliberate indifference, if appropriate. Fletcher-Harlee, 482 F.3d at 251.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons set forth herein, it respectfully is recommended that Plaintiffs Complaint, ECF No. 14, be dismissed for failure to state a claim, sua sponte, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), without prejudice to filing an amended complaint.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.