JOHNSON v. HUDSON COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER

Filing 5

OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 7/12/10. (sr, )

0 N)
N) -< C) N) H)I () 0 N) N) CD H-

o
P1
Cl) H

N)c) ZN)

CD N) N) N) N) CD

CD H CD N)

S
CD

o
N) N)
CDCnHQN)N)
LXI

C) H

N) HH CD C) N) H0 H

P1 ZN)
C) 0 N)

HO) N)Q N) H

N) N)

N)

Z 0 0

HN) N) H

0 H
HCD CD
CD

<

H

CD

CD N) N) N) H0 CD N) H-

0 N)

N) H
CD CD H N) CD
CD

HH H0 N) H HCDC) ZHO
CDCDH C) N)

C) H
`

N) N) CD N) CD CD

N) HN) N)

H-

N) CD

H

5

N)

CD N)C) HN)CD C)Z HCDOrN) H)HN)N)H
C) N) H H N)
CD

N)

CD N) N)
C)
N)

H

H N) H 0
H

N) 0 CDH
ON) CD 0 H CD CD N) CD

N) HN)H N) 0 N)
CD H N) H
-

N)
N) N) N) CD

C)

CD

CD N)
C)
-

N) N) N) N) 0 N) C) 0 HN)
HN) H0 CD N)
H-

CD H CD N) N) N) CD

0 N) N) Cl) C) N)

H

HN) CD H N) HN) H-

CD N)

0

C) 0

CD H N) 0 H CD H

0 N)
0

H

CD )N CD

N)

N)
N)

H N) HC)
CDQ CDCDH HHH

H

H N)

N) N) CD CD N) 0 H
N) --J

N) N)
HN) C) Ci N)

CD C)CDC)

CD

N) H H CD

N)
0 N)
HN)

N) N) CD N)

S
HCD N)
CD HH

N) CD N)

N) N)

CD H

N) N) C) H N)

0

H

N) N) CD

CD H HH N) C)
C)
`

N) HCD

C) O H H N)

N) N)

N) N) CD HH N) HN) N)

N) N)
0

H CD N)

N) It)
H 0

N)

--

CD

`Z

C)

HFN)

N) C)

N) C)

0 CD CD CD

H N) N) H
CD CD C) CD CD H

HH HCD N) H CD N) H-

C)
CD H N)

S
N)

5
N)
CD N) H

·

C)

0 CD

N) H

0 CD N) CD
CD C) CD

HN) N)

It)
lCD IH CD CD H
H CD

CD CD

H CD
·

H N) HN)

CD

CD H N) H HN) HH HCD

C)) CD CD CD

N)

N)
0 0

CD H

5

N) CD H

CD
0 N) CD N) CD H H --
CD

N)

0 H

H CD CD N) N)
HCD C)
N) N) N)

0 N) CD H CD

5
N) CD N)

-- N) N)

CD

CD 0

CD N)

N) N)

N) CD

0
H

N) CD N) CD N) N) N)
CD N) CD N) H CD H H N)
N)

CD CD N)

N) H-

HH

CD

S
N) N)

N)

N)

D)

H H

0

H

Z

O CD N)

N) H-

N) CD

H CD

z

C)

H-

N) N)

H

H N)

0 0
H
·

-

H
H 0 CD
CD

N)

H

CD

N) 0

CD CD

N) 0 H N)

H CD

N)

N) C)

CD

N)

Dockets.Justia.com

proceed

·fot.ma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)

(198)

and order the Clerk of the Court to file the Complaint acco rd in o l y . At this time, to 28 U.S.C. the Court must review the Complaint, and l9l5A, oursuant

§5 1915(e) (2) (B)

to determine whether it
for failure to

should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious,

state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or because it

seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief.

Por the reasons set forth below,

the Court concludes

that the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. I. Plaintiff, action, BACKGROUND (`Johnson"), brings this civil

Kenneth Johnson

pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983,

against the Hudson County
.

Correctional Center.

(Complaint,

Caption)

The following and are

factual allegations are taken from the Complaint, accepted for purposes of this screening only.

The Court has made

no findings as to the veracity of plaintiff's allegations. Johnson alleges that on March 28, bunk in his cell,

2010,

he fell off the top He

hurting his left knee and right shoulder.

complained to the correctional officers about the pain, not seen b a doctor until April 8, 2010.

but was

Plaintiff was given an

x--ray and Advil for the pain.

He states that he has a lump or He filed

knot on his right shoulder and a scar on his left knee.

)i)
-

()

C) Ft Di

0 C)
Ft

Q2 CD
Ft C)

a
CD Ft 0 CD HCD Di
it

Ft NJ it Ft
-

NJ C) C) CD H C)
it it

Di C) C) CD Ft C) CD
C) C) C)

CD CD
--

Ft

Di HCD CD CD CD Ft CD CD

Di CD < it Ft Di C) CD CD 0 H
it

H CD CD Ft

H

Di CD NJ
it

Ft Ft Di Ft CD Ft Ft Ft Ft

CD Ft
Di CD

Ft CD

a
Ft HC) Ft

a
CD
Ft 0 Di Di C)
--

H CD CD CD HCD iQ C) Ft Di H-

H CD C) CD HH CD

a a
Ft
Ft

H CD C). H CD CD CD Ft HC) Ft
CD C) Ft

H CD C) CD HH CD CD Ft Ft CD Ft CD C) 0 Ft CD CD 0 CD CD H 0 CD C) H C) Ft Di H-

C) Di Ft CD C') CD CD

CD Ft CD H

Ft H CD CD

-

C) .CD H CD CD H

Ft C) Ft Ft C) t) HCD C)

CD
HCD HCD HCD Di CD HCD
H-

CD

Ft 0 H

Ft 0 H CD

a a
Di
-

Ft Ft Di Ft

a
C)
çt

HCD Ft C)

CD CD CD C CD

CD

Di C) Di HCD CD Ft C) H HCD 0 CD

a

a
0 CD CD

Di

Di Ft Ft

C) C) C) HCD

C)

a
C)

CD CD
L<

HCD Ft HCD Ft HC) Ft Ft C) C) Ft

Ft
Ft Ft CD
(ii

C) Di <

NJ H HC) Ft CD Ft
Ft C) Ft Ft H H-

·

C)

CD CD
H 0
CD H Ft
(1) Ft Di

CD CD Ft HFt

Ft H HCD C) CD CD H HCD it H HC) Ft C)

C) CD Ft

a
Ft

e

Ft H

a
Ft
Di Ft C) CD 0 Ft Di

C) Ft

NJ

it

a
Ft
Ft CD 0 C) CD HFt

C)
Ft 0 CD CD

HCD CD Di Ft

CD CD CD

C)
CD H CD

H
HCD

CD C) Ft Di H Di Ft HC) Di Ft H-

CD Ft
0
CD

*

CC' CD Ft CD Ft Ft CD
CD 0 CD

0
C) H

Ft CD

C) C)

C)

*

H H CD CD H
0
N

CD
CD
CD Ft 0

Ft
Ft

CD Ft

Ft H HFt

C) <
)A)

Di
Ft

a
Ft Ft

0 Ft 0 CD CD CD CD Ft H 0 C)
-

C) C)
C) NJ
Ft

CD CD CD
Ft

Di Ft Ft C) Di
HCD CD

C)

Ui Ft

NJ

C)

CD H

CD
Di
Ft Ft CD Di Ft

C) H Di CD

Ft

H CD Ft 0 Ft CD Ft C) H

Ft C)

CD

Ft

-

CD
CD CD C)
Ft

C) Di H

CD
Ft
Ft

a

Di

C)

-

C) Di Ft t)

C)

(fT

Ft
CD
-

a a
CD
0 H
CD

C) 0 CD CD Ft H CD CD

H-

a
HFt NJ 0 Ft
CD C)

CD CD

Ft Ft HC) HCD CD C) Ft 0 Ft Ft CD C) Ft Di HDi C) Ft H0 CD HCD C) HCD 0 < CD CD H CD H HCD E
Di

Ft
C) C)

HCD Ft
-

C) Ft Di

NJ C) Ft C)

Di C) Di HCD CD it

NJ C) C)
(ii Ft

C) CD NJ C) C)
H-

CD

CD) HH

NJ Ft

Di Ft HC) H0 CD CD

CD

Ft
0
Ft

C) Ft
Ft 0 H
C) 0

CD Ft

C) C)

HDi

·

Ft
--

CD

CD

a
0 H Di

it Ft CD Ft Ft 0 H

HCD

-

Ft C)
C) C)
·
-

Ft C)

Ft

C)
H 0 NJ
CD

C)
· ·

C)
C)

Ft HFt CD Di
CD

H 0
CD CD

C) Ft Di
H-

H CD Ft HCD Ft CD CD CD C CD Di CD

a
Ft CD Ft 0

CD
Ft
0

C)

CD
CD
CD Ft
H-

NJ C)

Ft
-J --I

C)

o
Ft
Ft
--

a
Ft Ft

Ft CD

NJ

NJ

CD

C) C) 0 Ft Ft NJ

Ci) CD CD CD H-

·
CX)

C) 0 C) HCD
Ft

C) -U CD CD C)

Di Ft Ft <

C) Di
CD CD Di

Ft
Ft C) Ft

CD 0 CD Ft
L<

C)
·

Ft Ft Di HCD 0 CD CD Ft H
L<

H CD Ft HCD Ft

C)

0

CD
Ft

C)
0
C) Ft
·

CD C) Ft
C)

Ft
·

Ft
CD Ft CD HCD C) CD

Ft Ft C) C) C) C)

Ft

0
C) CD

Ft Ft CD

CD
Ft Di C)
Di

CD

Ft
CD

CD Ft C) C)
C) C) Ft CD Di Ft Ft CD 0 H C) HNJ C)

Di
--

C) CD CD

CD
0' CD NJ
--

Ft 0

Di CD C5 CD H HCD

CD Ft Ft

it

HCD Ft
C) C) Ft

Ft H HFt 0 CD Ft CD

Ft
CD CD Di CD

C<

Di
0 Ft
--

Di Ft CD C) -U C) Ft
-

Ft Di H 0 H Ft Ft Di HCD Ft

a
H
C) Ft Di HHCD Di
-

C) 0 CD H Ft

HFt CD CD CD HFt

CD

0

a
Di CD Ft Ft CD Ft Ft CD

CD

H CD Ft HCD Ft

Ft

CD

Di

a
Di CD 0 CD Ft CD Ft H 0

Ft

0 CD C) C)

Ft
CD CD

C) 0 H H CD

C)

C) CD H-

CD CD Ft

Ft

CD CD
Di

C) 0 CD H Ft HCD CD HCD

Di C)
C)
--.

Ft
Ft

Ft

Di Ft Ft

CD

a

a

C)
C)

Di C) Ft H-

·

CD Di H CD

H0 CD Di

0
CD

I

reasonable inferences that ca.n be drawn therefrom,
ic the light most favorable to the plaintiff."

and view them

Morse v.

Lower The Court

Merion School Dis7., need not, howEnrer,

132 F.3d 902,

906

3d Cir.

1997).

credit a··· pro
Id.

plaintiff's "bald assertions"

or "lecal conclusions.."
A complaint is

frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis

either in law ·or in fact.." 325 (1989)

Neirzke v.

Williams,

490 U.S.

319,

(interpreting the predecessor of § 1915(e) (2),
.

the

former § 1915 (d))

The standard for evaluating whether a Deutsch v. United

complaint is "frivolous" is an objective one. States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1086-87 (3d Cir. 1995)

A pjg

complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a

claim only if it appears "`beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which wou ld entitle him to relief.'" Gibson, at 93--94 355 U.S. Haines, 41, 45--46 404 U.S. (1957)). at 521 (quoting Conley v. 551 U.S. the Court

See also Erickson,

(in a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint,

reviewed whether the complaint complied with the pleadin g requirements of Rule 8. (a) (2) However, recently, the Supreme Court revised this standard

for summary dismissal of a Complaint that fails to state a cl aim in Ashcroft v. lpbal, 129 Silt, 1937 (2009)
.

The issue before

the Supreme Court was whether Iqbal's civil rights compla int adequately alleged defendants' personal involvement in

4

discriminatory decisions regarding Iqbal's treatment during detention at the Metropolitan Detenti.on Center which, violated his constitutional rights. 8(a) (2) id. if true,

The Court examined Rule

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which p.rovides

that a comoiaint must contain "a short and elair statement or the

claim showing th.at the pleader is entitled to relief."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (2).Citing its recent opinion in Bell

Atlantic Corp.

v.

Twombly,

550 U.S.

544

(2007),

for the

proposition that "`[a] conclusions' or

pleading that offers

`labels and

`a formulaic recitation of the elements of a "Ibal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting

cause of action will not do,' Twombly, 550 U.S.

at 555),

the Supreme Court identified two

working principles underlying the failure to state a claim
stan d ard :

First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations cortained in a corrplaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice Rule 8 does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not
... . ... . ..

Rule 8(d) (1) provides that "`[ejach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is required." Eed.R.Civ.P. 8(d).

"show[n"--"that the pleader is entitled to relief." Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)
Iqbal, 129

Fed.

S.Ct,

at

1949--1950

(citations

omitted)

The Court further explained that a court considering a motion to dismiss
by identifying pleadings that, because can they choose ar.e no to begin than

more

conclusicns, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a comparnt, they must cc supported oy ractual aI±egatlons. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.

Imbal,

129 S.Ct.

at 1950. civil complaints must

Thus,

to prevent a summary dismissal,

now allege "sufficient factual matter" to show that a claim is facially plausible. This then "allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
.

at 1948.

The Supreme Court's ruling in

Iqbal emphasizes that a plaintiff must demonstrate that the allegations of his complaint are plausible. also Twombly, 578 F.3d 203, 505 U.S. at 555,
&

j.

at 1949-50;

see

n.3;

Fowler v.

UPMC Shadyside,

2l0(3d Cir.

2009).

Consequently,

the Third Circuit observed that Imbal provides
`no set of facts' 41, 45--46 standard" that

the "final nail--in-the--coffin for the
set forth inConley. v. Gibson,

35.5 U.S.

(l957),2

In Coniey, as stated above, a district court was permitted to summarily dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim only if "it appear [cdi beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Id., 355 F33 at 45--46. Under this "no set of facts" standard, a complaint could effectively survive a motion 6

applied to federal complaints before Twombly. a: 210. The Third Circuit now reguires that a

Fowler,
trjct 5 $

578 F.3d court

must conduct the two-part analysis sat forth in 1gb oresented wi:h a motion to dismiss:

when

First, t.he factual and legal elements of a claim should be sesarated. The District Court must accept all of the complaint's weli-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. [Igbai, 129 S.Ct. at 1949--501. Second, a District Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a "plausible claim for relief." [.] In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief. A complaint has to "show" such an entitlement with its facts. See Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234--35. As the Supreme Court instructed in Igbal, "[w]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not `show [n]'-'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Igbal, [129 S.Ct. at 194 9--50] This "plausibility" determination will be "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." .
.

Fowler,

578 F.3d at 210--211. however, that the sufficiency of this

This Court is mindful,

se pleading must be construed liberally in favor of Plaintiff, (2007) even after Iqbal. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89

.

Moreover,

a court should not dismiss a complaint with

prejudice for failure to state a claim without granting leave to amend, unless it finds bad faith, See Grayson v. 111 2000) (3d Cir. 2002); undue delay,
,

prejudice or 293 F. 3d 103, 117 110--

Fayview State hcsp. Fauver,

Shane v.

213 F. 3d 113,

(3d Cir.

to dismiss so lono as it contained a bare recitation of the claim's legal elements. 7

III.

SECTION 1983 ACTIONS § 1983.

P1. aintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 provides in relevant part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory . . . suh cots, or causes to be sublected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the marty inured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress

Thus,

to state a claim for relief under § 1983,
first,

a plaintiff must

allege,

the violation of a right secured by the second, that the

Constitution or laws of the United States and,

alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person acting under color of state law. (1988); 1994). Here, Johnson names the Hudson County Correctional Center as However, the Hudson County Piecknick v. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (3d Cir.

Pennsylvania,

36 F.3d 1250,

1255--56

a defendant in this action.

Correctional Center must be dismissed from this lawsuit because it is not a "person" subject to liability under § 1983. Grabow v. 538--.39
.

Southern State Correctional Facility,

726 F.

Supp.

537,

(D,N.J.

1989) (correctional facility is not a person under Coaster County Farms Prison,
.

imti· .;

:8ztcoell v. (D.C. Pa.

z6 F.

Supp.

271,

274

1976)

Because plaintiff does not name the Complaint will be dismissed

another defendant in its entirety.

ut

this action,

To the extent that Johnson would seek to amend

8

his Complaint to name other defendants,

this Court finds,

for the

reasons stated below,

that the aileoaticns in the Comolaint fail

to state a cognizahie claim under § 1383. IV. ANALYSIS

it anpears from the allegations in the Complaint that
Johnson is asserting a denial of medical care claim in violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

It is

not clear whether Johnson was a pretrial detainee or a convicted inmate at the time of the alleged incident. Accordingly, the

Court will consider Johnson's claims urder both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment requires that prison officials provide inmates with adequate medical care. (1976); Rouse v. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103--04 In order

Plantier,

182 F.3d 192

(3d Cir.

1999).

to set forth a cognizable claim for a violation of his right to adequate medical care, medical need; and (2) an inmate must allege: (1) a serious

behavior on the part of prison officials Estelle,

that constitutes deliberate indifference to that need.
429 U.S. at 106; .582

Natale v.
(3d Cir.

Camden County Correctional Facility, 2003) the

318 F.3d .575,

To satisfy the first urong of the Estelle inquiry,

inmate must demonstrate that his medical needs are serious. "Because society does not expect that prisoners will have unqualified access to health care, deliberate indifference to

9

medical needs amount s tc an Eighth Amend ment violation only if those needs are `serio us.'" Hudson v, cMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) The Third Circuit ha s defined a serious m edical need as: (1) "one that has be en diagnosed by a ph ysician as requiring treatment;" (2) "one t hat is so obvious th at a lay person would recognlze the necessl ty mr a doctor's attention;" or (3) one for which "the denial of treatment would resu lt in the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" or "a lifelong handicap or permanent loss." Atkinson v. Taylor, 316 F.3d 257, 272-73 (3d Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citati ons omitted); also Monmouth County Cor rectional Institutio nal Inmates v. Lanz aro, 834 F.2d 326, 347 (3d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1006 (1988)
.

The second element of the Estelle test requires an inmate to show that prison of ficials acted with d eliberate indifferenc e to his serious medical need. Natale, 318 F.3d at 582 (finding deliberate indifferen ce requires proof that the official kne w of and disregarded an e xcessive risk to inm ate health or safety ) "Deliberate indiffere nce" is more than mere malpractice or negligence; it is a s tate of mind equival ent to reckless disregard of a known risk of harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 5 11 U.S. 825, 837--38 (1994). Furthermore, a priso ner's subjective dissatisfaction with his medical care doe s not in itself indi cate deliberate indifferen ce. Andrews v. Camden C ounty, 95 F. Supp.2d 217, 228 (D.N.J. 2000); Peterson v. Da vis, 551 F. Supp. 137 , 145

10

(D.

Md.

1982),

aff'd,

729 F.2d 1453

(4th Cir.

1984).

Similarly,

"mere disagreements over medical iudgment do not state E±eht h Amendment claims," White v... Napol.eon, 897 F.2d 103, 110 (3d cir

1990

.

"Coorts will disavow any attempt to second--goess the

propriety or adequacy of a particular course of treatment
[whichj remains a question of sound professional judgment." Pierce, 612 E.2d 754,
.

Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Cir. 1979)

762

(3d

(internal quotation and citation omitted)

Even if a

doctor's judgment concerning the proper course of a prisoner's treatment ultimately is shown to be mistaken, at most what would

be proved is medical malpractice and not an Eighth Amendment violation. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06; White, 897 F.3d at 110.

The Third Circuit has found deliberate indifference where a prison official: (1) knows of a prisoner's need for medical (2) or delays (3)

treatment but intentionally refuses to provide it;

necessary medical treatment for non--medical reasons;

prevents a prisoner from receiving needed or recommended treatment. See Rouse, 182 F.3d at 197. The court also has held

that needless suffering resulting from the denial of simple medical care, which does not serve any penological purpose, Atkinson, 316 F.35 at 26.

violates the Eighth Amendment.

See

also Monmouth County Corr.ctional Institutional Inmates, at 346 ("deliberate indifference is demonstrated `[wjhen

834 F.2d

prison authorities prevent an inmate from receiving recommended treatment for serious medical needs or deny access to a ph ysician

canable cf evalua:irc the need for such treatment"); C'Carroll, F.2d 103 991 F.2d 64 1990) (3d Cir.

Durmer v. 897

1993); White v.

Napoleon,

(3d Cir.

This Court finds,

based on the allegations of the Comolaint,

that Johnson has failed to show the necessary element ·of deliberate indifference to support his Eighth Amendment denial of medical care claim. Assuming for purposes of this Opinion only

that plaintiff has shown a serious medical need, Johnson cannot show deliberate indifference by the defendant because Johnson admittedly was provided medical care. seen by a doctor on April 8, 2010, Johnson admits that he was

only 11 days after the injury. Thus, at most,

He was x-rayed and given Advil for the pain.

there appears to be a disagreement by plaintiff as to the treatment he received. Johnson simply complains that the Advil As stated above,

prescribed for him was not enough for his pain.

"mere disagreements over medical judgment do not state Eighth Amendment claims." White, 897 F.2d at 110. Such allegations

sound in medical negligence,

which is not actionable under the See

Eighth Amendment as a claim of a constitutional deprivation.

A.t bough the sE...riousness of plaintiff's medical need may be a fact question, Johnson d.oes not aliege any permanent injury or disability, fracture, or other serious injury requiring more care than he received, He also fails to allege any facts to show that his injury required more than the x-ray and medication provided. Johnson states only that he had pain and it took more than a week to be seen by a doctor. Consequently, it would appear that Johnson would be unable to prove a serious medical reeo. 12

Ft CC CD
H H H

C) 0
rij 1j

0 H

H Cl

C)
LQ

CD Cl CD CC CD C) H Ft CC H 0
Ft Ft
·

H
Ft

S
CD Ft

Hi H H

5
U) H-

IX tO
HFt

0 lCD

Ft H-

5

H
H-

Cl CD Ft CD HO CD CD C) C) t)l HCD CC CC CC CC CD H Cl) tI 0 C CD H CD ti CD CD H CD
t-

CC CD H CD

H CD Ft H HCD H

Ø H 0 C) CD CD CD

H
`

H CL

5 5
<I
· ·

0 CD HCl H H X CD CD

CL CD Cl HCD CL C) CD t)l rt CD CD Ft H HCD H H H 0 C) CD CD CD

5

H S
CO
H

C) H CD H-

CD Ft CD Ft CC CD
·

-

H0 0) CD 0 Ft
a) C)
a)

UI HH CC Ft CC CD 0 Ft CD Ft CD Cl CD

CD H H H HC) CD Cl H CD

S
CD

HFt

C) 05
H

C).
Ft
Cl CC
-

H H

CC C) CC

CC
CD H Cl

H H 0 <I HCl CD

0
·

CD
C) CD CD Cl 0 H
Cl)

Ft CC CD

Hi H H
Cl

H C)
-

H a)

H H

Ft CC CD
H Hi CX)

0 H )
N
·

CD H Cl C/I
H
`

CD 0 CD

C)
CD 0 Ft U) CD CD

C)

a C) H

C/)

Ft H-

Cl CD Ft CD H0 CD CD CD CD 0 Cl
---

HH HCD CD

C)
CD 0 Ft 0
C)
-- .

H H0 H H 0 H
--

C)
Ft H

CD H 0

H C) C) C) 0 CD H

C)
HFt H H H

CD CD CL
U--

CD H H CD CD H CD CC CD H CD
-

CD Cl HC) CD H C) 0 0 Ft
t-

CD H H CD H CD Cl

CD < Ft CD 0 Ft

CD CC 0 C) H Cl CC CD H0
U-

CD Ft Ft CC CD
Ft CX)

0 H
Ft CD

H H C) H
H C)

H0 Ft 0

0
a)

CD
CD >C CD

H C) C) C)

H

H C) C) H CD H 0 0
H ti CD

Ft CC CD

Cl
H-

H
H

H

C) C)
H
·

0 H H HCD CC 0 0 H CD Ft 0 H Cl H H
Hi
-

C) CD Xl

0 H H CD H
Cl Hi
---

CD C) ti H) H CD Ft
CD H CD
H

Ft CC CD Ft
·

H
a)

CD Cl. Hi
H a)
--

C)

C)

I
H a)

Ft CC CD Ft
H H
H H

·

H-

CD
· -* "

H CC H H H H
H

HHH Hi C)
-

-

H Cl

O C)
0 0 H H) Ft CC CD

CD 0

C) CD H

0 Cl CD H Cl H0 H0 H 0 C) Ft CC Ft CC CD

CC C) CC CC CD H Cl C) C). HC) CD Ft H0 0 i 0 C) H Ft CD CD 0 Ft CC Ft CC 0 CD CD C) 0 H
Hi

CC
CD H CD
<)

O 0 CC 0 CD 0

HCD CD CD Cl

H H

HCl CD

CD Ft

H0 CD Cl CD 0) C) CD Ft CD

0
H 0 H

C)

H

HH

H

CD 0 Cl

5
CD
H
C)
·

O
a) C) H C) C)
H
--

Ft CD C) Ft CD CD CD
CD

0 H
C)

CD C) C) CC C/) CD CD Cl C) 0 C) 0 Ft

HCD CD C) CD C)

5
0
0 H

a)

Ct CD CD H

4 C 0 CC H CC HH Cl C) H CD H-

C) Hi I C) CD Cl HC) CD H

0 0 0

0
Cl
-

H S

C) 0 H Cl HCD

CD Ft

0

H

CD 0

5 5 H
H H
--

H CL

CD H CD 0

C) 0

0 0
H H H)

0

H
-

H 0 C) H Ft CD CD CD 0 Ft
-

HCD CD

0 CO C)
HH
· · · ·

H C) HH Ft CC CD Ft CC CD H HCD
H 0

C)
CD

CD

0 0 Ft

H Cl

H Hi a)

H H0 CD CL
H-

CC 0 H CL H-

Ft CC

H CD HH C) H CD

0
H

CD H CD

CD Cl HC) CD H Ft H CD CD Ft

H

C)
Cl
C) C) 0
CD H HH H HH
*
--

Ft 0
--

C) 5
CD H C) 0 H C) C) Hi
--

Ft CC CD Ft CC CD

0 H H CD C) Ft H0

0
H Cl
U-

H CD
Ft

CD CD CD CD C) CC C) CD CD Ft ) CC CD Ft CC CD H
Ft

CD

H H CD Ft H HCD H

Ft CC CD

0

Cl

HH C) C) HFt
-`--

CD 0 Cl CD

CD

C) 0

0
Ft
--

H H 0 0 H

0 0
-- ·

H
CD HH

CD CC CD H C) CD

CL CD

CD

Ft CC CD Ft

C)
0 0
H

Cl HH 0 H CD C) HFt H-

CC HCD

Ft

CD Ft CD

CD Ft CD Ft CD CO HH

0
H HCD 0

0
CL CD H

0

Ft

HCD H

5
0
CD

C) 0

H
a)

0
H 0 C)

0
H CD H
`--

Ft CC CD CD Ft HFt C) CD H Ft

Ft CC CD

C) H CD HCl C) CD

H H CD Ft H HCD H Cl HFt H0

0
tO

CD H

H0 0 CD

CD C)
--
· -- ·

HCD H H C) CC H H C) C) Hi

Cl CD Ft CD H0 CD CD CD E CD HFt H-

CD C) H 0 H

C) H CD H HH HCD Cl

0
Ft CD Cl 0 H Ft 0

CL
CD CD Ft

C)
-- -·

S
Ft

0 H

HCD CD Ft CD H Cl
-

CC

CC C) CC

CC

Ft H0
H C) Hi

C) CD H Ft Ft CC CD
·

0

Cl CD CD H

0 0
HCD Cl H

Ft CC CD

CD

Ft Ft CC CD

CD

CD

H-

CD

C) C)
·

Cl

H-

C)
CD H

0 H H HC) HCD H CD

examined under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteen th Amendment, he still fails to state a claim. As discussed above,

Johnson was treated for his injury and medical needs with an x--
ray and medication.

At moso,

plaintiff waited 11 days before he

was seen by a doctor,

and the x--ray taken and medication

prescribed did not i.ndicate an injury that was serious requiring
more care than provided. Thus, the admitteh allegations ot the

Complaint do not show that any delay or denial o f treatment was excessive in relation to any stated purpose of jail security and administration, and there is no showing that the actions or

inactions of defendant was intended as punishment and retaliation. Cir. 1993) See Hubbard v. Taylor, 834 F, 399 F.3d 150, Supp. 772, 158--63 (3d

2005); Newkirk v.
.

Sheers,

781

(E.D.Pa.

Therefore,

any Fourteenth Amendment claim asserting

denial of medical care also must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Finally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (3), where a

district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental The Court of where all federal

jurisdiction over a related state law claim. Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that, dents are dismissed before trial,

"the district court must

decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties Hedges v.

provide an affirmative justification for doing s o." 14

CD C) Ft

C C)
C CD C) 0 0 CD

*

U) CD Ft CD U) 0 NJ NJ

C)
(I)

U)
C) C) U)
Ut)

C) C
HCD 0 hi C) C)

o
C C)
C) CD ·

NJ CD H-

C) CD U) CD CD CD (N hi Ft HH CD

C) CD

o o
C)

C)

C
Ft LCD hi Ft C CD
LCD
-

U)
C)
NJ

CD C C C

C)

C CD Ft hi C CD C) CL) < Ft U) hi

N) C)
hi

o
U]
C) )l

C
C) C

HCD CD CD C) Ft C) CD

o
N
NJ HLCD

E

C)
CD CD H-

C) C
-

o
C) C)
Cl)

HFt

HNJ NJ CD.

CD 0 hi

(U

C)
C
HC) HCD

C)

C) N)

C) C
Ci)

hi CD CD CD 0 Ft C) CD C)

C
CD
hi

NJ C) C) CD

hi

o
hi CD
U

cc)

U) Ft HH C) HFt

C C C C)
CD
-

o

L<

CD

N

CD C
C) C) NJ CD H-

CD NJ HCD U)

HCD CD

C)
Hhi

NJ NJ U)

C)

C)

o
C)
hi hi CD H

< C

C

Ct) Ft ·

)C HFt U) 0 hi Ft C)

C

()

CD `< CD C)

C)

H-

C
CD NJ
LQ

C)

C C)

C)
CD NJ CD C) 0

0

C)
C
Ft

CD

C)

Ft

NJ U] HFt CD

cc)
NJ

Ft H-

C) Hhi

o

HFt CD U] H C CD NJ CD

C) 0 C) C) CD

C) C
Cl)

hi CD Ft CD C)

H
C)
NJ

D
CD NJ

C) hi CD
Li-

CD C 0 CD CD

C
C) CD

C) Cr) HI

C)
C) hi CD C)

C C) C
C) NJ CD HFt CD

CD C) Ft C C
U) 0 hi C) CD CD Ft HU) U) HC) CD HC) CD CD C H C) CD CD

NJ C) C) C)

C)
hi
Ft 0

Ft Hhi CD Ft

C

FtC) CD Ft (DC) CDX C) U)U) H- Ft CDX FtC) hi H

CD

CD

Ft C) CD Ft CD C) C) hi

C) CD

HFt CD Ft H C) CD

C

C)
Ft

o

LCD

CD Ft CD Ft hi CD C CD CD H-

C

C
Ft Ft 0
(I)

C) 0 Ft

CD < C) NJ CD H-

E
C) CD

CD

C)

hi
NJ CD

0 CD CD CD

C C)
CD

C) hi HCD Ft CD

U) CD HNJ C hi CD

E

C

Ft

o
hi

Ft 0

N)
CD

Ft C) CD

Ft

C C)
CD hi C CD CD

Ft Ft CD C) C) CD
hi

0 NJ CD H-

D
CD NJ

CD
--

CD Ft CD Ft CD

C)