674 Fed.Appx. 133 (3rd Cir. 2017), 16-3036, Bowens v. Wetzel
|Citation:||674 Fed.Appx. 133|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||MONTEZ M. BOWENS, Appellant v. JOHN WETZEL; KLOPOTOSKI; MICHAEL WENEROWICZ; SCOTT MILLER; KERI MOORE; AMANDA WEST; DORINA VARNER; JAMES BARNACLE; KERI CROSS; GEORGE ONDREJKA; JAY LANE; LURAL HARRY; JEFFREY BAKER; J.W. SPAGNOLETTI; A. FLAIM; M. COX; GOBERWIRE; J. BROWN; ROTH; POLLARD; ROBISON; TAYLOR CRANE; M. KNAPP; MIRABAL; ROZNICH; A. JONES; ...|
|Attorney:||Montez M. Bowens, Montez M. Bowens, Pro se, Bellefonte, PA. For John E. Wetzel, Defendant - Appellee: Randall J. Henzes, Esq., Claudia M. Tesoro, Esq., Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. For BRATTON, Doctor, Dr. Martinez, Defendant - Appellee: Alan S. Baum, Esq., Matis ...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||January 04, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
December 1, 2016, Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
This opinion is not regarded as Precedents which bind the court under Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedure Rule 5.7. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
On Appeal from the United States District Court. for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (E.D. Pa. No. 2-14-cv-02689). District Judge: Honorable Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr.
Montez M. Bowens, Montez M. Bowens, Pro se, Bellefonte, PA.
For John E. Wetzel, Defendant - Appellee: Randall J. Henzes, Esq., Claudia M. Tesoro, Esq., Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
For BRATTON, Doctor, Dr. Martinez, Defendant - Appellee: Alan S. Baum, Esq., Matis Baum & O'Connor, Pittsburgh, PA.
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges.
Montez M. Bowens appeals the District Court's order dismissing his amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. His appeal also arguably encompasses the District Court's order granting summary judgment in favor of two defendants. We will summarily affirm both orders.
In May 2014, Bowens filed a civil rights complaint against several defendants associated with his incarceration at SCI-Graterford. He subsequently amended the complaint. The amended complaint is lengthy and discursive, covering a wide range of unrelated subjects and events, but the main allegations concern Bowens' perception that he was subject to sexual abuse and harassment at Graterford, that the prison staff retaliated against him for protected activity related to his complaints of abuse and harassment, that he was denied access to adequate medical care for his mental health issues, and that the prison staff discriminated against him on the basis of disability. In an order entered June 15, 2016, the District Court granted a motion to dismiss filed by those defendants designated as " the Graterford defendants" --essentially, the state employees working at SCI-Graterford who Bowens alleges were involved in abuse, harassment, and retaliation directed at him. In an order entered June 23, 2016, the District Court granted the summary judgment motion of the remaining defendants, Drs. Bratton and Martinez, medical contractors who allegedly were deliberately indifferent to Bowens' serious medical needs. Bowens filed a timely notice of appeal, which he amended a few days later.
Our review of the District Court's dismissal order is plenary. Huertas v. Galaxy Asset Mgmt., 641 F.3d 28, 32 (3d Cir. 2011). " To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' 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." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting and citing Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). " Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim to relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679. We
may summarily affirm a District Court's order if the appeal presents no substantial question, see 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6, and we may rely on any ground that the record supports, see Hughes v. Long, 242 F.3d 121, 122 n.1 (3d Cir. 2001).
A pro se plaintiff's pleadings are liberally construed. See Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003). But even under that relaxed standard, there is no substantial question that Bowens' complaint failed to state a claim, largely for the reasons explained by the District Court. See Fantone v. Latini, 780 F.3d 184, 193 (3d Cir. 2015) (holding that a pro se complaint must still meet Iqbal's plausibility standard).
We agree with the District Court that Bowens' amended complaint does not state any claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP