Reichart v. Prison Health Services, SCI-Camp Hill et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2012, in accord. w/the accompanying memorandum, it is ORDERED that: 1. Premier Eye Care Group's mtn. to dismiss 26 is GRANTED. 2. Prison Health Service's mtn. to dismiss 32 is GRANT ED. 3. Reichert's mtn. to file an amd. complt. 31 is GRANTED. 4. Plf. is granted 21 days from the dt. of this order to file an amd. complt. in accord. w/the foregoing memorandum. 5. The amd. complt. must be complete in all respects & must be a new pleading which stands by itself, w/out reference to the orig. complt. already filed. 6. Failure to submit an amd. complt. in compliance w/the requirements of the accompanying memorandum will result in dismissal of this action w/out prejudice. 7. The Clerk of Crt. is dir. to send plf. two copies of this court's form civil-rights complt. which plf. shall use for his amd. complt. should he chose to file one. (See memo for complete details.) Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 6/26/12. (am, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD D REICHART,
Plaintiff
v.
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, SCICAMP HILL, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-11-1992
(Judge Caldwell)

MEMORANDUM
I.

Introduction
On October 26, 2011, Richard D. Reichart, a state inmate formerly housed at

SCI-Camp Hill, in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, filed this civil-rights action.1 Reichart alleges a
prison physician advised him that he had cataracts in both eyes and needed corrective
surgery. (Doc. 1, Compl.) An ophthalmologist from Premiere Eyelab Group performed
“catarac (sic) surgery that went bad, [and now Reichart is] completely blind in [his] left eye
from this eye surgery.” Id. at p. 2. The court has interpreted Reichart’s claim as one of
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Named as defendants are two entities:
(1) Prison Health Services (PHS), the contract medical care provider at SCI-Camp Hill; and
(2) Premier Eyelab Group (Premiere Eye Care),2 employer of the surgeon who removed
the cataract from Reichart’s left eye at one of their facilities.
Presently before the court are defendants’ separate motions to dismiss. Also
pending is Reichart’s Motion to file an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 31). For the reasons

1

Reichart is presently housed at SCI-Houtzdale, in Houtzdale, Pennsylvania.

2

The proper name of this defendant is Premier Eye Care Group. (See Doc. 12, Waiver of

Service).

the follow, the court will dismiss the claims against PHS and Premiere Eye Care but grant
Reichart’s motion to file an amended complaint.

II.

Standard of Review
In considering a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), “[w]e

‘accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the
plaintiff may be entitled to relief.’” Byers v. Intuit, Inc., 600 F.3d 286, 291 (3d Cir. 2010)
(quoted case omitted). This inquiry is “normally broken into three parts: (1) identifying the
elements of the claim, (2) reviewing the complaint to strike conclusory allegations, and then
(3) looking at the well-pleaded components of the complaint and evaluating whether all of
the elements identified in part one of the inquiry are sufficiently alleged.” Malleus v.
George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011). The court may not dismiss a complaint merely
because it appears unlikely or improbable that plaintiff can prove the facts alleged or will
ultimately prevail on the merits. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563 n. 8,
127 S.Ct. 1955, 1969 n. 8, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Instead, the court must ask whether
the facts alleged raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the
necessary elements. Id. at 556, 127 S.Ct. at 1966. A court may consider documents
attached to the complaint if they form the basis of the plaintiff's claim. Mayer v. Belichick,
605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010).
“Pro se complaints are ‘liberally construed’ and ‘held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]’” Jackson v. Div. of Developmental
Disabilities, 394 F. App’x 950, 951 n.3 (3d Cir. 2010) (nonprecedential) (quoted case
-2-

omitted). Nonetheless, the complaint still “must contain allegations permitting ‘the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Id. (quoted
case omitted). In deciding a motion to dismiss, “a court must consider only the complaint,
exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly
authentic documents if the complainant’s claims are based upon these documents.” Mayer
v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir 2010) (citing Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White
Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993).
Pro se litigants are to be granted leave to file a curative amended complaint
even when a plaintiff does not seek leave to amend. See Fletcher–Harlee Corp. v. Pote
Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 252 (3d Cir. 2007). However, dismissal without
leave to amend is justified on grounds of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility.
Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235-36 (3d Cir. 2004).
With these principles in mind, we set forth the background to this litigation.

III.

Background
While housed at SCI-Camp Hill, Reichart put in a “sick slip” to see the eye

doctor “for some reading glasses.” (Doc. 1 at ECF p. 2).3 He was seen by an “eye doctor”
at SCI-Camp Hill in June and advised that he had cataracts in both eyes and needed
surgery. Id. Reichart was “sent out” of SCI-Camp Hill on August 15, 2011, to Premiere
Eye Care “for cataract surgery that went bad, [he is] now completely blind in [his] left eye
from this eye surgery.” Id.

3

Unless otherwise noted, all citations to the record are to the docket number and page
number assigned by the Electronic Case Filing system (ECF) rather than the page number of the
original document.

-3-

As relief, Reichart seeks a consultation with an outside eye professional to
get a “second opinion” as to the status of the vision in his left eye. He also seeks
compensatory and punitive damages from PHS and Premiere Eye Care. Id. at p. 3.

IV.

Discussion
A.

PHS’ Motion to Dismiss Based on Reichart’s alleged
Failure to Exhaust his Administrative Remedies.

Section 1997e(a) prohibits a prisoner from filing a lawsuit under section 1983
“or any other Federal law” concerning prison conditions until he has exhausted his
“available” administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion must be
“proper,” meaning the inmate must comply with all the procedural steps the state requires,
including deadlines. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91, 93, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2385-86,
2387, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006).
PHS asserts that Reichart has not fully exhausted his administrative
remedies as to the claims he presents in this lawsuit. In his Amended Complaint, Reichart
indicates that he has exhausted his administrative remedies as to all claims. Although
plaintiff does not specifically name PHS in his grievance papers that he filed as “evidentiary
paperwork in his case” (Doc. 29), Reichart is clearly questioning the medical care he is
receiving for his eyes, including whether he should be referred to ophthalmic specialists
other than Premiere Eye Care. Such matters would be in the discretion of the contract
health-care providers at SCI-Camp Hill, which is PHS. Furthermore, contrary to PHS’
assertion, Reichart does not need to establish, in his Amended Complaint, that “he has
pursued his grievance through final review” pursuant to the Department of Corrections’
Inmate Grievance System. See Doc. 33 at p. 7. An inmate's failure to exhaust under the
-4-

PLRA is an affirmative defense that must be pled and proven by defendant. Ray v. Kertes,
285 F.3d 287, 295 (3d Cir. 2002). A prisoner does not have to allege in his complaint that
he has exhausted administrative remedies. Id. It is unknown if Reichart filed other
grievances related to the ophthalmic pre-operative or post-operative care while at SCICamp Hill, or that his rejected institutional grievances were not pursued, or overturned at
final review. Accordingly, while PHS may ultimately be able to prove that Reichart has
failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies, they have not carried their burden
as to that defense at this point.

B.

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss

To state a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must plead two essential elements:
(1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law;
and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right. See
Miller V. Mitchell, 598 F.3d 139, 147 (3d Cir. 2010).
It is well established that “[a] defendant in a civil rights action must have
personal involvement in the alleged wrongs . . . Personal involvement may be shown
through allegations of personal direction or actual knowledge and acquiescence.” Rode v.
Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207-08 (3d Cir. 1988). See also Sutton v. Rasheed, 323
F.3d 236, 249 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Rode). Liability may not be imposed under § 1983 on
the traditional standards of respondeat superior. Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207-08. A doctor
under contract to a state to provide medical services to prisoners is considered to be acting
under color of state law, West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 2258, 101
L.Ed.2d 40, 53 (1988), and the principles just mentioned apply in that context as well.
-5-

Hetzel v. Swartz, 909 F. Supp. 261, 264 (M.D. Pa. 1995).
A Section 1983 claim based on a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition of unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain arises where prison officials and
doctors exhibit deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). In order to establish
an Eighth Amendment medical claim, a plaintiff must show “(i) a serious medical need, and
(ii) acts or omissions by prison officials that indicate deliberate indifference to that need.”
Natale, 318 F.3d at 582; see also Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3rd Cir. 1999).
A prison official acts with deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious
medical needs when he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or
safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn
that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1979, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).
Thus, a complaint that a physician or a medical department “has been negligent in
diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical
mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. at 292.
When a prisoner has actually been provided with medical treatment, one cannot always
conclude that, if such treatment was inadequate, it was no more than mere negligence.
See Durmer v. O'Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 69 (3d Cir. 1993). If inadequate treatment results
simply from an error in medical judgment, there is no constitutional violation. See id. In
sum, negligence,4 unsuccessful medical treatment, or medical malpractice do not give rise
4

If plaintiff sought to raise a claim of medical malpractice against a physician, Pennsylvania
(continued...)

-6-

to a § 1983 cause of action, and an inmate’s disagreement with medical treatment is
insufficient to establish deliberate indifference. Id.
A private corporation, such as PHS and Premiere Eye Care, may be sued
under § 1983 for actions taken under color of state law that deprive a prisoner of adequate
medical care. Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 583-84 (3d Cir. 2003).
However, neither PHS nor Premiere Eye Care can be held responsible for the acts of its
employees under a theory of respondeat superior. See Monell v. New York City Dep’t of
Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691-94, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035-38, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); see
also Afdahl v. Cancellierie, 463 F. App’x 104, 109 (3d Cir. 2012) (nonprecedential) .
Instead, to establish liability against PHS or Premiere Eye Care, Reichart must
demonstrate that he suffered a violation of his federal rights because of a PHS or Premiere
Eye Care policy, practice, or custom. See Natale, 318 F.3d at 583-84; see also C.N. v.
Ridgewood Bd. of Educ., 430 F.3d 159, 173 (3d Cir. 2005).
Although Reichart has sufficiently pled an Eighth Amendment claim generally,
he has not adequately alleged the personal involvement of any individual employee of PHS
or Premiere Eye Care in the deprivation of care that lead to the blindness in his left eye.
Likewise, the Complaint fails to allege an unconstitutional policy, or a series of events from
which this court could infer the existence of a PHS or Premiere Eye Care policy that
resulted in a constitutional violation. Accordingly, the claims against PHS and Premiere
Eye Care fail to state a claim.

4

(...continued)
law, Pa. R. C. P. 1042.3(a)(1), requires the filing of a certificate of merit (COM) in all professional
negligence claims filed in federal court. See Booker v. U.S., 366 F. App’x 425 (3d Cir. 2010)
(nonprecedential) .

-7-

Although Reichart’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action against PHS or
Premiere Eye Care in its present form, it is possible that the identified deficiencies may be
remedied by amendment. In fact, in lieu of responding to the defendants’ motions to
dismiss, Reichart has sought allowance to file an amended complaint. See Doc. 31, Mot.
to Amend. Accordingly, Reichart will be granted twenty-one days to file an amended
complaint. If Reichart decides to file an amended complaint, he is advised that it must
contain the same docket number as the instant action and should be labeled “Amended
Complaint.” In addition, the "amended complaint must be complete in all respects. It must
be a new pleading which stands by itself as an adequate complaint without reference to the
complaint already filed." Young v. Keohane, 809 F. Supp. 1185, 1198 (M.D. Pa. 1992). In
particular, Reichart is advised that any amended complaint he may file supercedes the
original complaint and must be “retyped or reprinted so that it will be complete in itself
including exhibits.” M.D. Pa. LR 15.1. Consequently, all causes of action alleged in the
original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint are waived.
Reichart is also directed that his amended complaint must be concise and
direct. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). Each allegation must be set forth in an individually
numbered paragraphs in short, concise and simple statements. Id. The allegations should
be sufficiently specific as to time and place, and should identify the specific person or
persons responsible for the deprivation of his constitutional rights and what each individual
did that led to deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 343, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. If he
wishes to name PHS and/or Premiere Eye Care, he must set forth specific facts showing
that they had a policy or custom that caused his injuries. He shall also specify the relief he
seeks with regard to each claim. Reichart’s failure to file an appropriate amended
-8-

complaint within the required time will result in the dismissal of this action.
We will issue an appropriate order.

/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge
Date: June 26, 2012

-9-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD D REICHART,
Plaintiff
v.
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, SCICAMP HILL, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-11-1992
(Judge Caldwell)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2012, in accordance with the
accompanying memorandum, it is ORDERED that:
1. Premier Eye Care Group’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 26) is
GRANTED.
2. Prison Health Service’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32) is
GRANTED.
3. Reichart’s Motion to file an Amended Complaint (Doc. 31)
is GRANTED.
4. Plaintiff is granted twenty-one (21) days from the date of
this Order to file an amended complaint in accordance with the
foregoing Memorandum.
5. The amended complaint must be complete in all respects
and must be a new pleading which stands by itself, without
reference to the original complaint already filed.
6. Failure to submit an amended complaint in compliance
with the requirements of the accompanying Memorandum will
result in dismissal of this action without prejudice.

7. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff two (2)
copies of this Court’s form civil-rights complaint which Plaintiff
shall use for his amended complaint should he chose to file
one.

/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge

-2-