Opinion
1:24-CV-00043-RAL
06-05-2024
SYLVESTER LEWIS, Plaintiff v. MARK SUTHERLAND, et al., Defendants
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RICHARD A. LANZILLO CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Recommendation
It is hereby recommended that Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Zantac, Prilosec, Alvesco, and Atelenol be dismissed as legally frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
II. Report
A. Background
Plaintiff Sylvester Lewis, an inmate incarcerated at SCI-Forest, initiated this action in the Court of Common Pleas of Forest County, Pennsylvania, by filing a civil rights complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ECF No. 1 ¶ 3. Plaintiffs IFP motion was granted on November 15, 2023. Id. ¶ 4. Defendants removed the action to this Court on February 15, 2024. Id.
In his pleading, Lewis asserts several claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical personnel and prison officials at SCI-Forest based on alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See generally ECF No. 1-2. In broad brush, Lewis contends that medical providers at the prison disregarded his complaints of skipped heartbeats and arrythmia and, rather than order diagnostic testing, prescribed him drugs that did not work or made things worse. Id. In addition to suing the medical professionals who treated his condition, he has named four prescription drugs as Defendants: Zantac, Prilosec, Alvesco, and Atelenol. Id.
B. Standard of review
Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, 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). A frivolous complaint is one which is either based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory (such as when a defendant enjoys immunity from suit) or based upon factual contentions which are clearly baseless (such as when the factual scenario described is fanciful or delusional). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). The determination as to whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. D'Agostino v. CECOM RDEC, 436 Fed.Appx. 70, 72 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999)).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his allegations, “however inartfiilly pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972). Moreover, under the liberal pleading rules, during the initial stages of litigation, a district court should construe all allegations in a complaint in favor of the complainant. Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 1997).
C. Analysis
To establish liability under Section 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a deprivation under the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) by a person acting under color of state law. Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 633 (3d Cir.1995). However, prescription drugs, like buildings or other inanimate objects, are not “persons” for purposes of § 1983. See, e.g., Loper v. Federal Tax, Federal Tax Return, 2019 WL 3973851, at *1 (W.D. Pa. July 26, 2019) (noting that an “individual's federal income tax return” is not a proper defendant in a § 1983 action); Regan v. Upper Darby Tp., 2009 WL 650384, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2009) (a building is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983). Nor can a prescription drug act under color of state law. For each of these reasons, Zantac, Prilosec, Alvesco, and Atelenol should be dismissed from this action, with prejudice.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Zantac, Prilosec, Alvesco, and Atelenol be dismissed from this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
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).