BAYLOR v. PHILADELPHIA PRISON SYSTEM et al
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDMUND V. LUDWIG ON 8/11/10. 8/11/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA T R O Y BAYLOR v. P H IL A D E L P H IA PRISON SYSTEM, et al. : : : : : C IV IL ACTION
N O . 10-cv-1468
MEMORANDUM L u d w ig , J. A u g u s t 11, 2010
T h is is a prisoner civil rights case, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; jurisdiction is federal question, 2 8 U.S.C. § 1331. The pro se complaint alleges that on September 19, 2009, plaintiff Troy B a y lo r reported to sick call to receive his medication. Complaint, section II. Defendant Judy S h a w is alleged to have given plaintiff the wrong medication at that time. Id. As a result, p la in tiff became ill. Id. Defendants Philadelphia Prison System and Warden Karen Bryant1 m o v e to dismiss plaintiff's claims against them.2 For the following reasons, the motion will
Also named as a defendant is Judy Shaw. The docket reflects that plaintiff attempted to serve Shaw at the Philadelphia Industrial Correction Center, but the summons was returned unexecuted with a notation that Shaw was not a City employee. Docket no. 6. When considering a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the court must "`accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.'" Yellowbird Bus Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2010 WL 2766987, at *3 (E.D. Pa., filed July 12, 2010), quoting DeBenedictis v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 492 F.3d 209, 215 (3d Cir. 2007). The complaint must "put Defendants on notice of the essential elements of Plaintiff's cause of action and raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "A pleading that offers `labels and conclusions' or a `formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), quoting Twombly. The complaint must contain "more than the-defendant-unlawfully-harmedme accusation." Id. There is a difference between alleging an entitlement to relief - which, by itself, is not sufficient - and showing, through factual allegations, that the entitlement exists. Iqbal, supra, at 1950. Only a complaint that includes the latter will survive a motion to dismiss.
b e granted. W ith respect to the Philadelphia Prison System, it is a municipal agency of the City o f Philadelphia and, as such, has no separate existence of its own and is not subject to suit. G riffith v. Philadelphia Prison Systems, 2001 WL 876804, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Pa., filed May 18, 2 0 0 1 ), quoting 53 P.S. § 16257 ("all suits growing out of [PPS's] transactions . . .shall be in th e name of the City of Philadelphia."). Accordingly, all claims against the Philadelphia P r is o n System are dismissed. W ith respect to defendant Bryant, the complaint does not contain any allegations a g a i n s t her, but merely names her as a defendant. "A defendant in a civil rights action must h a v e personal involvement in the alleged wrongs; liability cannot be predicated solely on the o p era tio n of respondeat superior." Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1 1 9 5 ), citing Parratt v. Taylor, 452 U.S. 527, 537 (1981). Thus, the fact that defendant B ry a n t is employed in a supervisory capacity does not subject her to liability based solely on th e actions of others. To state a cognizable claim against Bryant, the complaint must allege fa c ts showing that she participated in violating plaintiff's rights, or directed others to violate th e m , or that she had actual knowledge of and acquiesced in the violation. Baker v. Monroe T w p ., 50 F.3d 1186, 1190-91 (3d Cir. 1995). It does not do so, and therefore, plaintiff's c la im s against her must be dismissed. B Y THE COURT: /s/ Edmund V. Ludwig Edmund V. Ludwig, J.
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?