Gibson v. SCI Coal Twp. Med. Dep't

Full title: TAIJEEM GIBSON, Plaintiff v. SCI COAL TOWNSHIP MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

Date published: Mar 6, 2023

1:22-cv-00618 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2023)

Opinion

1:22-cv-00618

03-06-2023

TAIJEEM GIBSON, Plaintiff v. SCI COAL TOWNSHIP MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants

Yvette Kane, District Judge United States District Court

ORDER

Yvette Kane, District Judge United States District Court

AND NOW, on this 6th day of March 2023, upon consideration of Defendants' motion to partially dismiss the complaint (Doc. No. 10), and in accordance with the accompanying

Memorandum, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants' motion to partially dismiss the complaint (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

a. Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED as to Defendants' arguments concerning Defendant Medical Department at State Correctional Institution Coal Township (“Medical Department”), and Defendant Medical Department is DISMISSED from this action;

b. Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED as to Defendants' arguments concerning pro se Plaintiff Taijeem Gibson (“Plamtiff')'s Fourteenth Amendment claims, and Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDCE from this action;

c. Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED as to Defendants' arguments concerning Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages under Article I, Sections 13, 25, and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages under Article I, Sections 13, 25, and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

d. Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED as to Defendants' arguments concerning Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief under Article I, Sections 25 and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief under Article I, Sections 25 and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

e. Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED as to Defendants' arguments concerning the alleged lack of personal involvement of Thomas McGinley (“McGinley”), Lynette Rich (“Rich”), and Blanche Milo (“Milo”) regarding Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims of inadequate medical care;

f. Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED as to Defendants' arguments concerning Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief under Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution;

2. This action shall proceed against Defendants McGinley, Rich, Milo, and Toms on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims of inadequate medical care and on Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief under Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; and

3. Defendants McGinley, Rich, Milo, and Toms shall file an answer to the complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order.