Opinion
Case No. 2:20-cv-0689-JDW
03-05-2020
HASHEAM MACK-TANSMORE, Plaintiff, v. MR. JONES, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
Hasheam Mack-Tansmore wants the Court to let him proceed without paying filing fees. If the Court does so, then it must by law decide whether Mr. Mack-Tansmore has stated a plausible claim in his Complaint. He has not. For the claims against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its agencies, he cannot cure the problem, so the Court will dismiss his claims with prejudice. For other claims, he might be able to fix the problem, and the Court will give him the chance to do so by dismissing the claims without prejudice and letting him file an amended complaint.
I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
In his Complaint, Mr. Mack-Tansmore references incidents that occurred on October 21, 2018, and January 23, 2019. According to the grievance documents that he attaches to his Complaint, on January 23, 2019, while he was an inmate at SCI Chester, he was in an elevator that malfunctioned. A maintenance worker named Mr. Jones told him to take the stairs. He objected because he used a walker and could not take the stairs, but Mr. Jones insisted. While walking on the stairs, Mr. Mack-Tansmore fell and injured his lower back.
Mr. Mack-Tansmore told a nurse at the prison that sharp pains were shooting up and down his spine and he was experiencing a tingly sensation in his lower back. He received pain pills. It is unclear whether he received an x-ray. He alleges he did not, but in one of his grievance documents he states that an x-ray was negative for fracture. (ECF No. 1 at p. 13.)
Based on that, Mr. Mack-Tansmore asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Mr. Jones, Correctional Officer Henderson, Correctional Officer D. Lee, Correctional Officer S.P. Green, Dr. Little of the SCI Chester Medical Department, SCI Chester's Grievance Coordinator Ms. Quinn, SCI Chester's Superintendent Marirosa Lamas, Nurse Gaskins, and Dr. Nickleson of the SCI Chester Medical Department. He names each of the individual defendants in their official and individual capacity. Although Mr. Mack-Tansmore does not list SCI Chester as a defendant in the body of the complaint, it is the only defendant that he names in the caption. He asserts that the defendants have violated his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A plaintiff seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis must establish that he is unable to pay for the costs of his suit. See Walker v. People Express Airlines, Inc., 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989). Where, as here, a court grants a plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must determine whether the complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). That inquiry requires the court to apply the standard for a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Under that standard, a court must take all well-pleaded allegations as true, interpret them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and draw all inferences in his favor. See Kokinda v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections, 779 F. App'x 938, 941 (3d Cir. 2019). And, because Mr. Mack-Tansmore is proceeding pro se, the court must construe his pleadings liberally. See Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Mr. Mack-Tansmore provided information demonstrating that he lacks the income or assets to pay the required filing fees. Therefore, the Court will grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, because he is currently incarcerated, the Court does not have the power to waive his filing fee. Instead, Mr. Mack-Tansmore must pay the filing fee in installments. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
B. Plausibility Of Claims In Complaint
"To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
1. Claims to be dismissed with prejudice
Certain claims that Mr. Mack-Tansmore asserts suffer legal flaws that he cannot fix in any amended pleading. The Court will therefore dismiss them with prejudice. See Burns v. Femiani, 786 F. App'x 375, 380 (3d Cir. 2019) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate when flaw in pleading cannot be cured). Because the claims are dismissed with prejudice, they are finally resolved. Mr. Mack-Tansmore may not assert them in an amended pleading.
a. Claims against SCI Chester
Section 1983 only permits a claim against a "person." 28 U.S.C. § 1983. SCI Chester is not a "person" under Section 1983. See Pettaway v. SCI Albion, 487 F. App'x 766, 768 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Also, because SCI Chester is part of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, the Eleventh Amendment bars claims against it. See id.
b. Official capacity claims
The Complaint identifies all of the individual defendants as SCI Chester employees. It also asserts claims against each of those individual defendants in his or her official capacity, as well as individual capacity. A claim against a state official acting in an official capacity is really a claim against the employing government agency, so the Eleventh Amendment bars such claims. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991).
c. Sixth Amendment claims
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees a right to a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the allegations, to be confronted with witnesses, to have available compulsory process to obtain witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel. See U.S. Const. Amend. VI. Mr. Mack-Tansmore's claims have nothing to do with any criminal proceeding against him and therefore cannot state a claim under the Sixth Amendment.
d. Claims under the Pennsylvania Constitution
There is no private right of action for damages under the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Plouffe v. Cevallos, 777 F. App'x 594, 601 (3d Cir. 2019); Gary v. Braddock Cemetary, 517 F.3d 195, 207 n.4 (3d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Mr. Mack-Tansmore cannot maintain such claims.
2. Claims to be dismissed without prejudice
Mr. Mack-Tansmore asserts a number of claims against individual defendants in their individual capacities. A state official named in his or her individual capacity is a "person" within the meaning of Section 1983. See Hafer, 502 U.S. at 31. While Mr. Mack-Tansmore can assert such claims, the claims that he has asserted suffer from some flaws. So the Court will dismiss them without prejudice and give Mr. Mack-Tansmore a chance to fix those flaws in an amended Complaint.
a. Defendants about whom the Complaint does not allege any action
Although Mr. Mack-Tansmore names Officers Henderson, Lee, and Green, Drs. Little and Nickleson Ms. Quinn, and Superintendent Lamas as defendants, he does not make any factual allegation against them. He just asserts that they are "in violation" of the Pennsylvania Constitution and federal law. Those conclusory allegations do not state plausible claims against any of these individuals. A "defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs" to be liable. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). If Mr. Mack-Tansmore has a basis to claim any of those individuals did something that violates his rights under federal law, he must provide some factual background to support his claim.
b. Nurse Gaskins
Mr. Mack-Tansmore seems to claim that Nurse Gaskins did not provide him adequate or appropriate medical care. To state a constitutional claim based on the failure to provide medical treatment, a prisoner must allege facts indicating that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994). Allegations of medical malpractice and disagreement regarding proper medical treatment do not establish a constitutional violation. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 235 (3d Cir. 2004).
Assuming that Mr. Mack-Tansmore's medical issue was serious, his deliberate indifference claim against Nurse Gaskins is implausible because it alleges only a disagreement about the nature of medical treatment he should have received. He did receive medical attention from Nurse Gaskins shortly following his fall and was given pain medication. Although he thinks he should have received additional treatment, that disagreement does not state a constitutional violation.
c. Mr. Jones
Mr. Mack-Tansmore complains that Mr. Jones told him to take the stairs even though he could not walk. It is not clear what constitutional claim Mr. Mack-Tansmore asserts against Mr. Jones. Claims based on negligence do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation (see Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332 (1986)), and the Court cannot discern a potential constitutional violation in the claims against Mr. Jones. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the claims without prejudice. If Mr. Mack-Tansmore has a claim against Mr. Jones based on a violation of a constitutional right, he must clarify it in an amended Complaint.
IV. CONCLUSION
Mr. Mack-Tansmore needs to try again to state claims against the individual defendants. The Court will give him the chance to do so. He must mind the guidance in this Memorandum if he intends to proceed.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Joshua S . Wolson
JOSHUA D. WOLSON, J. March 5, 2020