Opinion
Civil Action 20-200E
05-04-2021
THEODORE RIDGEWAY, Plaintiff, v. JERI SMOCK, CHCA, MIKE EDWARDS, RNS, DR. LETIZIO, DANIEL STROUP, PA, DR. HARTWELL, CAPT. CAMPBELL, SGT. BELL, CO II, SGT. PUTMAN, CO II, CO1 BUZZIO, CO1 BROMLEY, CO1 POWELL, CO1 HALL, NURSE BLAIR, SUPERINTENDENT CLARK, JOHN E. WETZEL, Secretary of Corrections, MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OF SCI ALBION, BOTH SHIFT COMMANDERS, and MS. WEBB, Unit Manager, Defendants.
Susan Paradise Baxter, District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RE: ECF NO. 31
MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Theodore Ridgeway (“Plaintiff”), an inmate presently incarcerated at State Correctional Institution at Albion (“SCI-Albion”) filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arising out of allegations that he was injured after prison officials failed to assign him bottom tier/bottom bunk status while he required the use of crutches. ECF No. 6.
Presently before the Court is the Partial Motion to Dismiss Complaint filed by Defendant Dr. Amanda Hartwell (“Dr. Hartwell”). ECF No. 31. For the following reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Motion to Dismiss be granted.
II. REPORT
A. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiff's Allegations
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was housed on the top tier of EA-Block at SCI-Albion. ECF No. 6 ¶ 1. On July 6, 2018, Plaintiff sought medical attention because his foot was swollen and changing colors, and he was unable to walk. Id. ¶ 3. Defendant Daniel Stroup (“Stroup”), a physician's assistant in the SCI-Albion Medical Department, told Plaintiff that he might have gout, ordered blood work and issued Plaintiff crutches. Id. ¶¶ 3, 24.
Plaintiff refers to various exhibits throughout his Complaint. See, e.g., ECF No. 6 ¶¶ 36, 39, 43, 46, 52-56. However, the exhibits that he refers to do not appear to have been provided with his Complaint or as attachments to any other filings that Plaintiff has provided to the Court.
Despite Plaintiff's use of crutches, prison officials did not transfer Plaintiff to the bottom bunk and/or bottom tier of his housing unit. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff points to several incidents in which prison officials were allegedly made aware of his need to be housed on the bottom tier/bottom bunk while using crutches. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Bell and Putnam, as well as several unidentified guards, were notified by other prison officials that he needed to be housed on the bottom tier. Id. ¶¶ 7, 9, 10. In addition, Powell witnessed Plaintiff almost fall down the stairs twice between July 7 and 9, 2018, but he did not take any action to have Plaintiff transferred. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff also claims that he confronted Clark, the SCI-Albion Superintendent, on the EA-Block at an unspecified time, regarding his placement on the top tier. Id. ¶ 70.
On July 11, 2018, Plaintiff fell down a flight of approximately 10 stairs. Id. ¶ 11. He injured his lower back, and he was taken to the hospital for treatment. Id. Upon his return to SCI-Albion, however, prison officials still did not transfer Plaintiff to the bottom tier/bottom of his housing unit. Id. ¶¶ 15-17. Plaintiff also claims that medical personnel refused to return his crutches or provide him with a bed in the medical department. Id. ¶¶ 13-14.
Since his fall, Plaintiff claims that he has suffered from back pain, spasms, and problems with his spine. Id. ¶¶ 23, 25, 27-28, 35. He claims that the medical staff is not properly treating his symptoms, and that the medication he has been provided does not work. Id. ¶¶ 33, 40. Plaintiff also alleges that medical personnel at SCI-Albion have falsely claimed his condition is the result of a birth defect, instead of his fall. Id. ¶¶ 39, 41.
In addition, Plaintiff alleges that he was retaliated against for complaining about his back pain. Id. ¶ 29. On July 18, 2018, Plaintiff asserts that he was placed in an infirmary cell with an inmate assigned a “D-Code, ” who urinated on him while Plaintiff was confined to a wheelchair. Plaintiff was required to sleep on a broken bed without a mattress, despite having a back injury. Id. After Plaintiff notified medical staff that he would file a grievance, he was transferred to a different infirmary cell with a new bed. Id. ¶ 30. On July 20, 2018, Plaintiff was provided with a wheelchair. Id. ¶ 34. He was then transferred to the bottom tier/bottom bunk of his unit. Id. ¶ 47.
On September 7, 2018, Plaintiff was transported to an outside hospital for an MRI of his spine. The MRI revealed that Plaintiff was injured in the fall. Id. ¶ 37. Thereafter, Plaintiff was referred for an evaluation by a neurosurgeon. Id. ¶ 38.
2. Grievance History
Plaintiff alleges that he filed Grievance No. 749467 relative to the allegations in his Complaint on July 25, 2018. Id. ¶¶ 50, 52. Edwards provided the initial review response to this grievance on August 9, 2018, in which he upheld in part and denied in part Plaintiff's grievance. Id. ¶ 52. Plaintiff appealed this decision, and Clark remanded the grievance for additional review. Id. After it was remanded for further review, Smock denied Plaintiff's grievance. Plaintiff appealed this decision twice to final review, where the decision was first upheld by Clark, followed by Chief Grievance Officer, Dorina Varner. Id. ¶¶ 54-55.
Plaintiff asserts that Edwards and Smock should not have been permitted to review his grievance because Smock oversees individuals in the medical department of whom he complained in his grievance, and because Smock is Edwards's supervisor. Id. ¶¶ 52-54. Plaintiff claims that Clark ignored his objections to their participation in the grievance process. Id. ¶ 54.
3. Dr. Hartwell
Plaintiff includes a list of Defendants in his Complaint, which includes Dr. Hartwell. Id. at 3. He does not include any specific allegations relative to Dr. Hartwell and he does not refer to her elsewhere in his Complaint.
4. Plaintiff's Claims
Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Id. at 4; Id. ¶¶ 69, 73. Plaintiff also appears to assert a claim for negligence against unspecified members of the medical staff and the “unit management team.” Id. at 4; Id. ¶¶ 74-75. In his Complaint, Plaintiff additionally includes allegations relative to “retaliation, ” “intentional infliction of emotional distress” and “falsifing [sic] documents/reports”; however, he does not specifically plead these as separate claims in the legal claims section of his Complaint. Id. at 4; Id. ¶¶ 29-30, 41, 59.
As relief, Plaintiff requests compensatory and punitive damages, a declaration that the acts and omissions he describes in his Complaint amount to a violation of his constitutional rights, injunctive relief prohibiting any retaliatory actions, and the recovery of his costs and attorneys' fees. Id. ¶¶ 78-82.
5. Procedural History
Plaintiff lodged his Complaint in this action on July 16, 2020, without submitting a filing fee or Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Motion”). ECF No. 1. After the Court issued a Deficiency Order, Plaintiff requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 2 and 3. The Court granted Plaintiff's IFP Motion on September 15, 2020, and his Complaint was filed the same day. ECF Nos. 4 and 6.
Defendants Dr. Letizio and Daniel Stroup filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint on December 23, 2020. ECF No. 33.
Defendants employed by the Department of Corrections (the “Corrections Defendants”) separately filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 17, 2020, which was granted in part and denied in part. ECF Nos. 16, 50 and 51. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against Defendants John Wetzel, Mike Edwards, Jeri Smock and the Medical Department of SCI-Albion, claims against the Corrections Defendants in their official capacities, and claims of First Amendment retaliation and/or falsifying documents or reports, and it granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint as appropriate. ECF No. 51. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint.
Dr. Hartwell filed the instant Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support on December 23, 2020. ECF Nos. 31 and 32. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a Response to Dr. Hartwell's Motion to Dismiss on or before January 25, 2021. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff did not file a Response by this date.
On February 2, 2021, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, directing Plaintiff to show good cause why Dr. Hartwell's Motion to Dismiss should not be granted due to Plaintiff's failure to respond. ECF No. 39. In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Withdraw Claim, ECF No. 41, indicating that he was unable to access the law library due to COVID-19 restrictions and that he required additional fact discovery relative to Dr. Hartwell. Based on this, Plaintiff requested leave to temporarily “withdraw” his claims against Dr. Hartwell, subject to his having the opportunity to pursue those claims upon further discovery in this action.
On March 3, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw without prejudice, finding that the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Dr. Hartwell's Motion to Dismiss should be extended in light of Plaintiff's stated inability to access the law library in order to respond and his expressed intent to pursue his claims against Dr. Hartwell if possible. ECF No. 45. The Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time until April 16, 2021 to respond to Dr. Hartwell's Motion to Dismiss. Id.
On April 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Show Cause why Defendant Hartwell's Motion to Dismiss Should not be Granted, which the Court construes as Plaintiff's response to Dr. Hartwell's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 48.
Plaintiff mailed his filing before April 16, 2021. ECF No. 48-1.
Dr. Hartwell filed a Reply. ECF No. 49.
The Motion to Dismiss is now ripe for consideration.
B. LEGAL STANDARD
In assessing the sufficiency of a complaint pursuant to a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint and all reasonable factual inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Odd v. Malone, 538 F.3d 202, 205 (3d Cir. 2008). The Court, however, need not accept bald assertions or inferences drawn by the plaintiff if they are unsupported by the facts set forth in the complaint. See Cal. Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys. v. The Chubb Corp., 394 F.3d 126, 143 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997)). Nor must the Court accept legal conclusions set forth as factual allegations. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has held that a complaint is properly dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) where it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, ” id. at 570, or where the factual content does not allow 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); see also Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) (finding that, under Twombly, “labels, conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” do not suffice but, rather, the complaint “must allege facts suggestive of [the proscribed] conduct” and that are sufficient “to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element[s] of his claim”).
Pro se pleadings, “however inartfully pleaded, ” must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will liberally construe his Complaint and employ less stringent standards than when judging the work product of an attorney. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
C. DISCUSSION
In support of the instant Motion, Dr. Hartwell argues that Plaintiff fails to plead her personal involvement in any wrong, nor does he articulate any plausible basis for supervisory liability, because he does not include any factual allegations relative to Dr. Hartwell in his Complaint. ECF No. 32 at 2-4. Based upon records that Dr. Hartwell subpoenaed from the Secretary's Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals (“SOIGA”), she argues in the alternative that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Id. at 4-9. Dr. Hartwell argues that Plaintiff only appealed one relevant grievance to final review, and he does not refer to her in this grievance. Id. For these reasons, Dr. Hartwell argues that any claims against her should be dismissed.
In response, Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Hartwell violated his constitutional rights by ignoring his symptoms and refusing to give him medication that would help with his pain. ECF No. 48 at 6. In particular, he argues that Dr. Hartwell intentionally prescribed him various medications that would not, and did not, sufficiently alleviate his back pain, delayed in ordering a change to his prescription, and told him to “get use[d] to the pain because it's for the rest of your life.” Id. at 2-6. He argues that she improperly required him to use a walker, instead of a wheelchair, which was contrary to the advice of his therapist and caused him to have additional back pain. Id. at 5-6.
In the Reply, Dr. Hartwell argues that the Court should disregard the factual allegations in Plaintiff's Response because they are not pleaded in his Complaint. ECF No. 49 at 1-2. To the extent he includes allegations relative to Dr. Hartwell in his Response, Dr. Hartwell argues that these allegations do not establish supervisory liability. Id. at 3. Dr. Hartwell reiterates that Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies, and she asserts that any claims should be dismissed with prejudice. Id.
Dr. Hartwell also disputes Plaintiff's claim that he was unable to respond to the Motion to Dismiss because he was unable to access the law library and that additional fact discovery is necessary, arguing that Plaintiff's allegations arise out of events that occurred prior to COVID-19, and that this does not explain his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. ECF No. 49 at 3. Plaintiff's discussion on this point, however, appears to be in reference to his previously filed Motion to Withdraw. ECF No. 48 at 1-2.
Upon review, the Court should grant Dr. Hartwell's Motion to Dismiss. In his Complaint, Plaintiff does not include any factual allegations relative to Dr. Hartwell, and he therefore fails to state a claim against her. See Phillips, 515 F.3d at 231 (complaint “must allege facts suggestive of [the proscribed] conduct” that are sufficient “to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element[s] of his claim”) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563 n. 8).
Plaintiff should, however, be granted leave to amend his Complaint to incorporate factual allegations against Dr. Hartwell as appropriate. “[I]f a complaint is vulnerable to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a district court must permit a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile.” Id. at 236.
Although Dr. Hartwell argues that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies based upon his failure to identify her by name in any grievance that was appealed to final review, at this preliminary stage, it is premature for the Court to conclude this renders Plaintiff's claim futile. Therefore, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Dr. Hartwell, with leave to amend as appropriate.
The Court notes that the grievance records Dr. Hartwell relies upon relate to events that occurred prior to the February 2019 medical treatment that he discusses in his Response. It is not clear whether Plaintiff filed a grievance relative to this treatment and whether any circumstances could excuse his purported failure to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to Dr. Hartwell.
D. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Dr. Hartwell's Partial Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 31, and Plaintiff's claims against Dr. Hartwell should be dismissed. Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his Complaint to incorporate factual allegations relative to Dr. Hartwell.
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 (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.