ABRANTE v. GAURINI et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM THAT HOSTETTER AND BAIR'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER FOLLOWS.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 1/8/14. 1/9/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLFF., E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MANUEL E. ABRANTE, III.
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 12-6860

VINCENT GUARINI, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Baylson, J.
I.

January 8, 2014

Introduction
Pro se plaintiff Manuel E. Abrante III is an inmate at Lancaster County Prison.

Abrante filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on October 1, 2013, alleging that prison
officials Vincent Guarini, Joe Shiffler, and Ann Haines; nurse practitioner Lori Hostetter;
and mental health counselor Bonnie Bair provided inadequate medical treatment for
injuries Abrante sustained after being shot in his legs and were deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment 1 right to be free from
cruel and unusual punishment. In response, Hostetter and Bair moved to dismiss
Abrante’s Complaint for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the Motion
is DENIED.

1

The Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishments has been
incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660
(1962). Accordingly, the Court treats Abrante’s Eighth Amendment claim as a claim for a violation of his
Fourteenth Amendment rights.
1

II.

Facts 2
On August 1, 2011, Abrante was shot twice and suffered a fractured pelvis and

femur, along with various other injuries. DE 5 at 3. He was taken to Lancaster General
Hospital, where he was prescribed pain medication and blood thinners. He was also
provided with crutches. On August 5, 2011, Abrante was released from the hospital into
the care of Lancaster County Prison (the “Prison”). DE 5 at 3. Prior to leaving the
hospital, Abrante’s doctor informed him that he would be placed in the Medical Housing
Unit at the Prison, would continue to be prescribed medication for pain, nerve damage,
blood thinning, and would also receive physical therapy. DE 5 at 3.
When he arrived at the Prison, Abrante was placed in a regular cell, not the
Medical Housing Unit. DE 5 at 3. Abrante remained in the regular cell block for twentyfive days until he was moved to the Medical Housing Unit on August 30, 2011. DE 5 at
3. He was also forced to give up his crutches. DE 5 at 6.
Lori Hostetter is a nurse practitioner employed by Prime Care Medical, Inc. to
provide medical care to the inmates at the Prison. Upon Abrante’s arrival, she changed
his medications to less effective types and reduced the dosage he had been receiving at
the hospital. DE 5 at 3.
Abrante never received any physical therapy for injuries. He also could not bathe
properly due to his injuries, did not get the proper amount of movement, and only was
permitted out of his cell for thirty minutes a day. Abrante also suffered mental health
issues that were ignored. DE 5 at 3.

2

These factual allegations are taken from the Complaint. They are presumed true for the purpose
of evaluating Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir.
2008).
2

Abrante filed a grievance with the Warden and Deputy Warden but received no
response. When Abrante sent a request slip to the Deputy Warden inquiring about his
grievance, the Deputy Warden replied that Abrante should have received everything he
sent in back, but he did not opine about the substance of Abrante’s grievance. DE 5 at 4.
Abrante spoke with Sergeant Steburger, Sergeant Showalter, and may other staff
members about his need for medical treatment, but nothing was ever done. DE 5 at 5.
As a result of the neglect of his medical needs, Abrante suffers from arthritis in
the spine and back, chronic pain in his back, legs, and pelvis area, and generally did not
make a healthy recovery from his injuries. DE 5 at 6.
III.

Legal Standard
When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6), the Court may look only to the facts alleged in the complaint and its
attachments. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d
Cir.1994). The Court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint
and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Angelastro v. Prudential–
Bache Sec., Inc., 764 F.2d 939, 944 (3d Cir.1985).
The government has an obligation to provide medical treatment for those serving
a sentence of incarceration. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 103. “[F]ailure to provide adequate
treatment is a violation of the eighth amendment when it results from ‘deliberate
indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury.’” Inmates of Allegheny Cnty. Jail v.
Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 762 (3d Cir. 1979) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105).
Accordingly, to state a claim for inadequate medical treatment, a plaintiff must show “(1)
that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to their medical needs and (2) that those

3

needs were serious.” Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999). A prison
official acts with deliberate indifference when he or she “knows of and disregards an
excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318
F.3d 575, 582 (3d Cir. 2003).
IV.

Discussion
Abrante has sufficiently alleged that he sustained injuries from being shot twice in

the legs and that he was recovering from these injuries while at the Prison. His
allegations describing the extent of his injuries clearly demonstrate that his medical needs
were serious. Abrante’s allegations regarding (1) the treatment that his doctor described
would be provided to him at the Prison, (2) the alterations to his medication, (3) the
failure to provide physical therapy, (3) the removal of his crutches, (4) the failure to place
him in the Medical Housing Unit for twenty-five days, and (5) the failure to respond to
his medical grievance sufficiently allege that Defendants were on notice of his serious
medical needs and were deliberately indifferent to them. 3 Natale, 318 F.3d at 582.
Accordingly, Abrante’s complaint states a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

O:\ChrisBerg\12-cv-6860 Abrante v. Guarini\Abrante v. Gaurini MTD Draft 1.6.14.docx

3

Although Abrante does not allege how Bair was involved in his treatment, his allegations
regarding Bear’s role as mental health counselor for the Prison and how his mental health needs
were ignored are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)
(“The handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed.”). A pro se complaint, “however inartfully
pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers . . . .” Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1979).
4