Shifflett v. Korszniak, 17-2676

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Citation934 F.3d 356
Docket NumberNo. 17-2676,17-2676
Parties Paul SHIFFLETT, Appellant v. Mr. KORSZNIAK, Correctional Health Administrator, State Correctional Institution ("SCI") Graterford, Collegeville, Pennsylvania; Dr. Christian, Doctor, Correct Care Solution, et al; Dr. Golsorkhi, Doctor, Correct Care Solution; Dr. Burkholder, Dentist, Correct Care Solution; Dr. Bianco, Dentist, Correct Care Solution; Dr. Pamela Roehm, Doctor; Dr. Joseph P. Mulligan, Doctor, Temple Hospital, Philadelphia Pennsylvania
Decision Date12 August 2019

934 F.3d 356

Paul SHIFFLETT, Appellant
v.
Mr. KORSZNIAK, Correctional Health Administrator, State Correctional Institution ("SCI") Graterford, Collegeville, Pennsylvania; Dr. Christian, Doctor, Correct Care Solution, et al; Dr. Golsorkhi, Doctor, Correct Care Solution; Dr. Burkholder, Dentist, Correct Care Solution; Dr. Bianco, Dentist, Correct Care Solution; Dr. Pamela Roehm, Doctor; Dr. Joseph P. Mulligan, Doctor, Temple Hospital, Philadelphia Pennsylvania

No. 17-2676

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued May 23, 2019
Opinion filed: August 12, 2019


Elana Bildner, Quinnipiac University School of Law, Civil Justice Clinic, 275 Mount Carmel Avenue, Hamden, CT 06518, Sebastian Brady, Elise M. Wander (Argued), Yale Law School, 127 Wall Street, P.O. Box 209090, New Haven, CT 06520, Benjamin M. Daniels (Supervising Attorney), Tadhg Dooley, Wiggin & Dana, One Century Tower, 265 Church Street, P.O. Box 1832, New Haven, CT 06508, Counsel for Appellant

Denise J. Smyler, General Counsel, Theron Perez, Chief Counsel, Chase M. Defelice (Argued), Raymond W. Dorian, Assistant Counsel, Timothy A. Holmes, I, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Office of Chief Counsel, 1920 Technology Parkway, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050, Counsel for Appellee Joseph Korszniak, Dr. Bianco, Dr. Burkholder

Caitlin J. Goodrich, Kenneth D. Powell, Jr., Emily B. Ryan-Fiore (Argued), Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton First & Newby, 2000 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Appellee Dr. Muhammad Golsorkhi

Teresa F. Sachs, Carol A. VanderWoude (Argued), Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, 2000 Market Street, Suite 2300, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Appellee Dr. Pamela Roehm

Sarah M. Baker, Ava M. Plakins (Argued), Bonner Kiernan Trebach & Crociata, 1801 Market Street, Ten Penn Center, Suite 770, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Appellee Dr. Joseph P. Mulligan

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR., and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

934 F.3d 359

Paul Shifflett was an inmate in the Pennsylvania prison system when he was set upon by fellow inmates who broke his jaw. This was only the beginning of his troubles: the surgery on his jaw went badly, causing him intense pain for the better part of a year. His efforts to seek treatment from the prison medical system bore only the most frustrating of fruit: he alleges he was denied adequate pain medication and given the run-around by different providers, each saying it was someone else’s responsibility. Shifflett claims he had still not received fully adequate corrective surgery over eight months later when he filed this complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, naming seven prison officials and outside doctors as defendants and asserting causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to severe medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

The District Court dismissed all of Shifflett’s claims, principally because it found he had not exhausted his administrative remedies within the prison system as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. The Court also found the substance of Shifflett’s allegations insufficient and denied him leave to amend, concluding that amendment could not cure his failure to exhaust.

We disagree. In Robinson v. Superintendent Rockview SCI , 831 F.3d 148, 153–55 (3d Cir. 2016), we strongly implied, though we did not hold outright, that a prisoner exhausts his administrative remedies as soon as the prison fails to respond to a properly submitted grievance in a timely fashion. Today we finish what Robinson started and adopt this as a rule. Shifflett exhausted his remedies and acquired the right to come into federal court when the prison did not decide the initial appeal of his grievances within the time limits specified by the grievance policy. Thus we reverse the District Court and remand with instructions to appoint counsel under Tabron v. Grace , 6 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1993), and to allow Shifflett to file an amended complaint with the assistance of counsel.

I. Background

The following facts are taken largely from the complaint, as well as certain attached documents. They are lengthy, but necessary.

Shifflett was an inmate at SCI Graterford in Skippack, Pennsylvania when he was attacked by fellow inmates on April 6, 2016. The attack broke his jaw, and the next day he was taken to Temple University Hospital for treatment. On April 8, Dr. Pamela Roehm—an ear, nose, and throat specialist at Temple—operated on Shifflett’s jaw, and he was placed on Norco (hydrocodone and acetaminophen ) for ten days. Two weeks later he returned to Temple for a follow-up appointment with Dr. Roehm, during which she removed the stitches from the outside of his face and told him that those on the inside of his mouth would dissolve on their own. Shifflett complained of intense pain in his jaw, but Dr. Roehm did not put him on any further pain medication.

934 F.3d 360

On May 4, 2016, Shifflett filed Grievance No. 625021 through the prison grievance system ("Grievance No. 1"). It asserted chiefly that he was not being treated for the pain in his jaw and that his numerous "sick call" request slips had been ignored. It also stated that a contract doctor at SCI Graterford, Dr. Ferdinand Christian, had told him that there was no other option but to deal with the pain, and that Shifflett was receiving his medication only twice a day rather than three times a day as prescribed.

Shifflett filed a second grievance against Dr. Christian, No. 626028, on May 11, 2016 ("Grievance No. 2"). This one alleged that Shifflett had submitted several additional "sick call" request forms since his previous grievance, and that Dr. Christian eventually came to visit him on the 11th but said there was nothing he could do to help. Eventually Dr. Christian agreed to send Shifflett to the hospital for another follow-up appointment, but he left before Shifflett could discuss his other medical concerns, which included his pain medication and his need for allergy medication. The same day, Shifflett submitted a dental request form stating that he continued to be in extreme pain and requesting another examination of his jaw.

The following day, Shifflett was taken back to the hospital for another appointment with Dr. Roehm. In response to Shifflett’s statement that he was in excruciating pain, that there was swelling in his face, and that his teeth felt misaligned, Dr. Roehm increased his dose of Motrin (ibuprofen ).

On May 24, 2016, Shifflett saw Dr. Muhammad Golsorkhi, a medical doctor at SCI Graterford. He requested an increase in his pain medicine, which Dr. Golsorkhi refused because a higher dose of Motrin could cause long-term harm. Shifflett asked for a stronger pain medicine instead, but was refused. Dr. Golsorkhi suggested that Shifflett speak to "dental" about his concerns, and the following day he did just that, submitting a dental sick call request.

Dr. Ronald J. Burkholder, a contract dentist at SCI Graterford, saw Shifflett on May 26 and took an x-ray of his jaw. Dr. Burkholder opined that Shifflett’s pain was the result of a incorrectly performed surgery and that Dr. Roehm should have inserted plates on both sides of Shifflett’s jaw rather than two plates on the left side, and should have removed a wisdom tooth on the left side of his mouth before inserting the plates. Shifflett asked Dr. Burkholder for pain medication but was told that the issue was medical rather than dental in nature.

Later that same day, Shifflett submitted Grievance No. 628368 ("Grievance No. 3"). It recounted his meeting with Dr. Burkholder and noted that the medical and dental professionals at SCI Graterford had each disclaimed responsibility for his treatment, saying his problems were in the other’s area of practice. Thus he requested to be seen by an external doctor but not at Temple University Hospital. He also reiterated his complaints of continued pain and sick call requests being ignored.

On May 27, 2016, the Corrections Health Care Administrator at SCI Graterford, Joseph C. Korszniak, issued the Initial Review Responses to Grievance Nos. 1 and 2. Korszniak stated that Shifflett was not being neglected, as he had been prescribed medication for his condition; that some delays in the delivery of medication were beyond the nursing staff’s control; that "[p]ain is very difficult to treat since most individual[s] perceive pain differently[, as s]ome have a very high tolerance and some have a low or no tolerance;" and that pain management was in the discretion of the health care providers. He did, however,

934 F.3d 361

state that he would schedule Shifflett to visit the pain management clinic.

Over the following days Shifflett submitted further sick call requests, one "medical" on May 29 and one "dental" on the 30th. Those requests complained of continuing severe pain as well as bleeding in his mouth, and sought increased pain medication and re-examination of his mouth. On May 30 Shifflett also submitted Grievance No. 628417 ("Grievance No. 4"), which reiterated many of his prior complaints and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
196 cases
  • Reid-Douglas v. Deparlos
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • October 17, 2019
    ...for the Third Circuit recently noted that the jailors must comply with the demands of the system they created. Shifflett v. Korszniak, 934 F.3d 356, 365 (3d Cir. 2019). The Court went on to hold that "as soon as a prison fails to respond to a properly submitted grievance or appeal withinthe......
  • United States ex rel. Charte v. Am. Tutor, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • August 12, 2019
  • Fordley v. Lizarraga
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • November 10, 2021
    ...that any delay in a prison's response to an inmate's grievance is sufficient to render administrative remedies unavailable. Cf. Shifflett , 934 F.3d at 366. Nor, contrary to the dissent's assertion, do we suggest that deeming Fordley's March grievance exhausted is an equitable or discretion......
  • Simmons v. Gilmore
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • March 31, 2021
    ...First Amendment retaliation claim only, which is a "separate claim . . . and thereforemust be separately grieved."9 Shifflett v. Korszniak, 934 F.3d 356, 366 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 111-12 (3d Cir. 1990)). B. Count II - 1st Amendment Retaliation; Free Exercis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT