Zaragoza v. Prime Care Employee Jane Doe's et al
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 13 Amended Complaint filed by Enio Fico Zaragoza. Signed by Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson on 1/27/2025. (ve)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ENIO FICO ZARAGOZA,
Plaintiff,
v.
PRIME CARE EMPLOYEE JANE
DOE'S, et al.,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 1:24-CV-01464
Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is an amended complaint in this action filed by Enio Fico
Zaragoza (“Plaintiff”). (Doc. 13.) Because Plaintiff has not identified individual
defendants and established personal involvement on the part of defendants, the
court will dismiss the amended complaint with leave to file a second amended
complaint using the court’s civil rights complaint form.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The court received and docketed the complaint in this matter on August 28,
2024. (Doc. 1.) In that complaint, Plaintiff identified the cause of action as filed
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three defendants: (1) Prime Care employee Jane
Doe 1; (2) Prime Care employee John Doe; and (3) Central Booking Dauphin
County. (Id.) Petitioner also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On
December 6, 2024, the court received a copy of Petitioner’s prison trust fund
account statement. (Doc. 10.) On January 7, 2025, the court entered an order
1
granting the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and screening the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (Doc. 12.) The court dismissed the
complaint based on a lack of jurisdiction. (Id.) Specifically, the court found that
Plaintiff’s complaint only raised an intentional infliction of emotional distress
claim under state tort law and failed to raise a constitutional challenge. (Id.)
Based on this, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (Id.) The court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and
provided him two copies of the court’s civil rights complaint form to assist in filing
an amended complaint. (Id.)
On January 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 13.) This
amended complaint appears to raise Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth
Amendment claims in addition to an intentional infliction of emotional distress
claim. (Id.) Plaintiff states that he “has determined that all the names of the
defendant party are on the Police report and Holy Spirit Medical records. Are
amended to reflect the identity and the action of the Primecare Jane Doe and
Dauphin County employee in Central Booking.” (Id.) However, the court finds
that Plaintiff did not identify the defendants in the complaint. In the alleged facts,
Plaintiff states that he had major surgery in the abdomen with 33 staples from
gunshot wounds on September 3, 2022. (Id., p. 4.)1 He alleges that on September
1
For ease of reference, the court uses the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.
2
7, 2022, he was placed in booking and left in a wheelchair. (Id.) He states that the
“Prime Care nurse and the rest of the officers knew about my injuries and still left
me in the bullpen cell without a bed mattress to laid or any medical supplies to get
clean up or even pain medica.” (Id.) He alleges he was in the bullpen for
approximately 11 hours and “[t]he nurse had [to] ask the medical staff officer to
make a cushion on smug in order for me to laid on the bullpen floor.” (Id.) He
further alleges that on September 8, 2022 he was moved to a mental medical unit
where inmates had thrown various bodily fluids on the wall. (Id., p. 5.) Plaintiff
alleges that “at least officer Bubba on M-Block help me to go take a shower while
I sit in the chair. . .” (Id.) Plaintiff further states “[t]he correctional officer and
Primecare knew I was being deprived of my rights . . .” (Id.)
STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court “shall dismiss” an in forma
pauperis case “at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted[.]” The legal standard for dismissing a
complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is identical to
the legal standard used when ruling on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss.
See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 109-10 & n.11 (3d Cir. 2002).
In order “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
3
on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible on its face “when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept all well pleaded allegations as
true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Doe
v. Univ. of the Scis., 961 F.3d 203, 208 (3d Cir. 2020). The pleadings of selfrepresented plaintiffs are held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by attorneys and are to be liberally construed. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Higgs v. Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d. Cir. 2011). Selfrepresented litigants are to be granted leave to file a curative amended complaint
even when a plaintiff does not seek leave to amend, unless such an amendment
would be inequitable or futile. See Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224,
245 (3d Cir. 2008).
DISCUSSION
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must meet two threshold
requirements. He must allege: 1) that the alleged misconduct was committed by a
person acting under color of state law; and 2) that as a result, he was deprived of
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
4
States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). It is also well established that “[a]
defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged
wrongs to be liable, and cannot be held responsible for a constitutional violation
which he or she neither participated in nor approved.” See Baraka v. McGreevey,
481 F.3d 187, 210 (3d Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff names two individuals in the alleged facts in the amended
complaint: (1) Prime Care Nurse; and (2) Officer Bubba. However, neither of
these individuals are identified as defendants in this action in the amended
complaint and both of these individuals provided some assistance in the form of
helping him build a bed on the floor of the bullpen and assisting him with
showering. (Doc. 13, pp. 4–5.) Therefore, it is unclear if Plaintiff means that these
two individuals were the defendants named in the police report and medical
records. For this reason, the court is unable to identify the intended defendants in
this action. Instead, it appears as if Plaintiff is casting a wide net in the complaint
citing “the officers” and “medical” as the bad actors in the alleged facts.
Therefore, the court will dismiss the complaint for failing to allege the personal
involvement of any individual in the alleged facts. The court will grant Plaintiff an
opportunity to further amend the complaint using the court’s civil rights complaint
form and specifically identify the intended defendants as he alleges he can do with
the police report and medical records. Additionally, Plaintiff is directed to
5
specifically identify each individual’s conduct and how it allegedly violated his
constitutional rights.
CONCLUSION
For the above-stated reasons, the amended complaint will be dismissed
without prejudice. Plaintiff will be granted leave to file a second amended
complaint in this action that identifies the defendants and their alleged conduct in
his statement of facts. The second amended complaint will be completed using the
courts civil rights form that includes space for Plaintiff to provide the names and
addresses of the individual defendants he can now name with the police report and
medical records. An appropriate order follows.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: January 27, 2025
6
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?