SOSA v. ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL et al
Filing
2
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 3/27/2014. (mmh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JOSE RAUL SOSA, JR.,
Civil Action No. 14-1736 (FLW)
Plaintiff,
v.
OPINION
ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.
RECEIVED
MAR 27
APPEARANCES:
JOSE RAUL SOSA, JR., #267409C
East Jersey State Prison
1-R-53 Lock Bag R
Rahway, NJ 07065
Plaintiff Pro Se
201~
AT 8·30
M
WILLIAM T. WALSH CLERK
WOLFSON, District Judge:
Jose Raul Sosa, Jr., who is confined at East Jersey State Prison in New Jersey, seeks to file
a Complaint asserting malpractice claims against St. Francis Hospital and Dr. Rajiv K. Shah, the
physician who performed surgery on Plaintiff.
This Court will grant Plaintiffs application to
proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons expressed in this Opinion, and as required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), this Court will dismiss the Complaint.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff asserts the following facts, which this Court is required to regard as true for the
purposes of this review.
He alleges that on January 23, 2012, while he was presumably
incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison or another state facility, Dr. Shah performed surgery on
him at St. Francis Hospital to remove a hernia. Plaintiff asserts that, although the hernia \Vas
located on his lower right abdomen, the scar from the surgery is located above his navel.
He
further alleges that he "ha[s] no idea what took place during surgery but the hernia still remains."
(Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff"believe[s] that Dr. Rajiv K. Shah[,] MD[,] removed tissue
unrelated to my hernia by mistake.
I'm suing for malpractice." !d. at 5. For relief, he seeks
$150,000 for physical disfigurement and $1.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. /d.
at 6.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Per the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to
1321-77 (April 26, 1996) ("PLRA"), district courts must review complaints in those civil actions in
which a prisoner seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b),
or brings a claim with respect to prison conditions, see 28 U.S.C. § 1997e. The PLRA directs district
courts to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This action is subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a) because Plaintiff is a prisoner within 28 U .S.C. § 1915A(c) and he "seeks redress from a
governmental entity."
"[A] pleading that offers 'labels or conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a claim 1,
1
"The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(8)(ii) is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Cavil
Procedure 12(b)(6)." Schreane v. Seana, 506 Fed. App'x 1'20, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Allah v.
Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)); Mitchell v. Beard, 492 F. App'x 230, 232 (3d Cir. 20 12)
(discussing 28 U .S.C. § 1997e( c )(1 )).
2
the complaint must allege "sufficient factual matter" to show that the claim is facially plausible.
Fowler v. UPMS Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203,210 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). "A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Belmont v. MB Inv. Partners, Inc.,
708 F.3d 470,483 n.17 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Moreover, while prose
pleadings are liberally construed, "prose litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to
support a claim." Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation
omitted) (emphasis added).
III. DISCUSSION
A.
Federal Jurisdiction
Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code provides a cause of action for violation of
constitutional rights by a person acting under color of state law. 2 To recover under § 1983, a plaintiff
must show two elements: (I) a person deprived him or caused him to be deprived of a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) the deprivation was done under color of state law.
See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
2
The statute provides in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory ... subjects, or causes to be
subjected, 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
party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress.
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3
The problem with Plaintiffs Complaint is that he asserts a medical malpractice claim, but •·a
complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does
not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment.
Medical
malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner. " 3
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976); see also Thomas v. Varano, 532 F.App'x 142, 146 (3d
Cir. 20 13) (In the context of a deliberate indifference claim based on failure to provide adequate
medical treatment, '"claims of negligence or medical malpractice, without some more culpable
state of mind, do not constitute 'deliberate indifference.'") (quoting Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.Jd
192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999)). Because claims of negligence and medical malpractice do not satisfy
the constitutional standard under the Eighth Amendment, the Complaint has not '"nudged
[Plaintiffs] claims" '"across the line from conceivable to plausible." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Because Plaintiffs allegations do not state a
claim under the Constitution, this Court will dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
l
3
The Eighth Amendment•s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment obligates prison
authorities to provide medical care to inmates. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, I 03 (1976);
Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999). To state a claim under the Eighth
Amendment, an inmate must satisfy an objective element and a subjective element. See Farmer
v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Specifically, inmates must demonstrate (1) that the
defendants were deliberately indifferent to their medical needs and (2) that those needs were
serious. See Thomas, 532 F.App'x at 146; Rouse, 182 F.3d at 197. Deliberate indifference may
be found where the prison official ( 1) knows of a prisoner•s need for medical treatment but
intentionally refuses to provide it; (2) intentionally delays necessary medical treatment based on a
non-medical reason; or (3) deliberately prevents a prisoner from receiving needed medical
treatment. !d.
4
B.
Amendment
A District Court generally grants leave to correct the deficiencies in a complaint by
amendment. See De!Rio-Mocci v. Connolly Properties Inc., 672 F.3d 241, 251 (3d Cir. 2012);
Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000).
However, in this case, nothing in the
Complaint suggests that Dr. Shah intentionally refused to surgically correct Plaintiffs hernia,
intentionally delayed Plaintiffs hernia surgery for a non-medical reason, or deliberately prevented
Plaintiff from re_ceiving appropriate treatment. Accordingly, this Court finds that amendment of
Plaintiffs § 1983 medical claim would be futile. 4
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, this Court will grant Plaintiffs application to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the Complaint.
_ _ _ ;)_)..,;,.___, 2014
DATED: --~ _
4
Nothing in this Opinion prevents Plaintiff from pursuing relief on any claims arising under State
law in State court. In addition, if Plaintiff believes that he can assert facts which would show
deliberate indifference, then he may apply to reopen this case and to file an amended complaint.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?