785 Fed.Appx. 904 (3rd Cir. 2019), 19-1389, Baker v. Ahsan

Docket Nº:19-1389
Citation:785 Fed.Appx. 904
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:Ralph BAKER, Appellant v. Abu AHSAN, M.D.; Ihumma Naachuku, Medical Doctor; Michael Piecuch, MD; Dr. Russell Feird, Urologist St. Francis; Steven Johnson, Administrator; St. Francis Medical Center University Hospital Correctional Medical Services; Rutgers University; Barman Vladislav, Medical resident at the University Hospital in Newark, New ...
Attorney:Ralph Baker, Pro Se Alison Russell, Esq., Debra A. Weinrich, Esq., White & Williams, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant-Appellee St Francis Medical Center University Hospital Correctional Medical Services Thomas C. Hart, Esq., Michael R. Ricciardulli, Esq., Alexander B. Stockdale, Esq., Ruprecht Har...
Judge Panel:Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and PORTER, Circuit Judges
Case Date:October 02, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 904

785 Fed.Appx. 904 (3rd Cir. 2019)

Ralph BAKER, Appellant

v.

Abu AHSAN, M.D.; Ihumma Naachuku, Medical Doctor; Michael Piecuch, MD; Dr. Russell Feird, Urologist St. Francis; Steven Johnson, Administrator; St. Francis Medical Center University Hospital Correctional Medical Services; Rutgers University; Barman Vladislav, Medical resident at the University Hospital in Newark, New Jersey; Marci L. Marsker, Clinical Administrator at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey ("UMDNJ"); Kathy Trillo, employee of UMDNJ; New Jersey Department of Corrections, NJDOC; Gary M. Lanigan, Commissioner of NJDOC; Jeremy Burg, a nurse employed by Rutgers; Lace Carter, a nurse employed by Rutgers; Correctional Medical Services, CMS, a provider of inmate healthcare for the NJSP; Alejandrina Sumicad, Employee of UMDNJ; Susan Spangler, Employee of UMDNJ; Vladislav Bargman

No. 19-1389

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

October 2, 2019

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 September 19, 2019

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Editorial Note:

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 District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-14-cv-07583), District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan

Ralph Baker, Pro Se

Alison Russell, Esq., Debra A. Weinrich, Esq., White & Williams, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant-Appellee St Francis Medical Center University Hospital Correctional Medical Services

Thomas C. Hart, Esq., Michael R. Ricciardulli, Esq., Alexander B. Stockdale, Esq., Ruprecht Hart Weeks & Ricciardulli, Westfield, NJ, for Defendant-Appellee Vladislav Bargman

Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and PORTER, Circuit Judges

OPINION[*]

PER CURIAM

Page 905

Ralph Baker appeals the dismissal of his suit for failure to state a claim. Because this case does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

Baker filed his complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") in December 2014. The District Court rejected Baker’s first two attempts to submit a complaint. Baker filed a third amended complaint ("TAC") in April 2017. Baker alleged that the eighteen named defendants failed to timely diagnose and treat him for a variety of ailments, including prostate cancer, while he was incarcerated. The District Court granted Baker’s IFP motion, but partially dismissed several claims and defendants from the action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Dkt. #49. The case moved forward as to the other defendants and claims. Subsequently, defendants Dr. Vladislav Bargman and St. Francis Medical Center, Inc. ("St. Francis") filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.1 See Dkt. #66, #77; Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Both Dr. Bargman and St. Francis generally argued that Baker’s TAC was confusing, unintelligible, and generally hard to decipher— making it impossible to discern what claims were alleged against them. The District Court granted Dr. Bargman’s motion without prejudice on May 21, 2018. See Dkt. #80. The District Court gave Baker leave to file a fifth amended complaint2 within thirty days of its order, but Baker failed to do so. Baker filed a motion for injunctive relief. Dkt. #91. After oral arguments were held, Dr. Bargman filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice. Dkt. #98.

The District Court ultimately granted St. Francis’s and Dr. Bargman’s motions to dismiss, while denying Baker’s motion for injunctive relief. The District Court noted that it had dismissed the federal claims...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP