Baylis v. Taylor, CIV.A.06 011 SLR.

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
• Writing for the Court: Sue L. Robinson
• Citation: Baylis v. Taylor, 475 F.Supp.2d 484 (D. Del. 2007)
• Decision Date: 23 February 2007
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A.06 011 SLR.,CIV.A.06 011 SLR.
• Parties: Leonard K. BAYLIS, Plaintiff, v. Stan TAYLOR, Chris Malaney, Dr. Anthony Cannoli, Charles Benton, and Georgiana Meekens, Defendants.

475 F.Supp.2d 484

Leonard K. BAYLIS, Plaintiff, v. Stan TAYLOR, Chris Malaney, Dr. Anthony Cannoli, Charles Benton, and Georgiana Meekens, Defendants.

No. CIV.A.06 011 SLR.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

February 23, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Leonard K. Balis, Pro se Plaintiff.

Eileen Kelly, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE, for Stan Taylor.

Kevin J. Connors, Esquire, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE, for Defendants Chris Malaney, Dr. Anthony Cannoli, Charles Benton, and Georgiana Meekens.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SUE L. ROBINSON, Chief Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the court are motions to dismiss filed by defendants Christine Malaney ("Malaney"), Dr. Anthony Cannuli¹ ("Dr.Cannuli"), Charles Benton ("Benton"), and Georgianna Mickens² ("Mickens").³ (D.I. 52, 65) Responses and replies were filed by plaintiff and defendants. (D.I. 55, 58, 60, 67, 68, 69) For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant the motions to dismiss of defendants Malaney and Dr. Cannuli and will deny the motions to dismiss filed by Benton and Mickens.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Delaware Correctional Center ("DCC"), filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 2) His original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. (D.I. 25) The amended complaint alleges that on November 23, 2005, Dr. Alexander Jacobson continued to prescribe plaintiff Prozac, Ritalin, and Dilantin for treatment of plaintiff's mental health disorder. Plaintiff alleges that the medications helped him to think and act normally. He alleges that on January 11, 2006, replacement doctor, Dr. Cannuli, "rescinded" the Ritalin stating that Correctional Medical Systems ("CMS") does not recognize the mental disorder ADD.⁴ Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Cannuli did not prescribe an alternative medication or evaluate, test, or measure the extent of his illness and that, without treatment, the illness is causing changes in plaintiff's behavior and thinking. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Cannuli was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by not prescribing medication for his ADD disorder and by rescinding his regular ADD medications.

Plaintiff alleges that he was repeatedly advised by psychologist Benton that he would be considered for a special needs unit and that plaintiff would "revisit" the psychiatrist for ADD medication and therapy. Plaintiff alleges that no action has taken place. Plaintiff alleges that Benton was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because plaintiff has not received proper mental health treatment.

Plaintiff alleges that Taylor and Malaney allow the medical department to be understaffed, unorganized, and unprepared to meet the needs of the prison population. He further alleges that the mental health unit is overburdened and, in turn, denies him adequate mental health treatment. Plaintiff also alleges that the medical grievance procedure is untimely and haphazard and the staff fails to recognize emergency mental health situations.

Finally, plaintiff, who has no teeth, alleges that he has been requesting dental care since March 2005 but that, when he appeared for treatment on November 29, 2005, Mickens refused to allow the work to go forward. Plaintiff alleges she told him, "you might have to wait another year for dental work."

Plaintiff seeks mental health and dental treatment, the administration of effective medications, and appropriate housing where mental health therapy is available on a regular basis.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Rule 12(b)(6) permits a party to move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of a complaint, not to resolve disputed facts or decide the merits of the case. Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir.1993). To that end, the court assumes that all factual allegations in plaintiff's pleading are true, and draws all reasonable factual inferences in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Amiot v. Kemper Ins. Co., 122 Fed.Appx. 577, 579 (3d Cir.2004). However, the court should reject "unsupported allegations," "bald assertions," or "legal conclusions." Id.

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion should be granted to dismiss a pro se complaint only when "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). Because plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court liberally construes the amended complaint. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652.

Defendants Malaney, Dr. Cannuli, Benton, and Mickens move for dismissal on the basis that the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. More particularly, they contend that the amended complaint does not allege the requisite personal involvement for § 1983 liability, that liability under § 1983 may not be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior, and that the facts in the complaint do not allege that Dr. Cannuli, Benton, and Mickens were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. The defendants also contend that dismissal is appropriate because plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

The court notes that both motions to dismiss argue facts that are not part of the record. Said argument is better reserved for a summary judgment motion, with supporting documents.

B. Administrative Remedies

Moving defendants argue that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as is required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) and, therefore, the amended complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff responds that he has exhausted administrative remedies and provides exhibits in support of his position. (D.I. 55)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") provides that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002) ("[T]he PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong."). Under § 1997e(a) "an inmate must exhaust [administrative remedies] irrespective of the forms of relief sought and offered through administrative avenues." Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n. 6, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). The exhaustion requirement is absolute, absent circumstances where no administrative remedy is available. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 227-28 (3d Cir.2004); Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65, 67 (3d. Cir.2000); but see Freeman v. Snyder, No. 98-636-GMS, 2001 WL 515258, at *7 (D.Del. Apr. 10, 2001) (finding that if no administrative remedy is available, the exhaustion requirement need not be met). However, if prison authorities thwart the inmate's efforts to pursue the grievance, administrative remedies may be presumed exhausted, as no further remedies are "available" to him. Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109, 112-13 (3d Cir.2002).

Delaware Department of Correction administrative procedures provide for a multi-tiered grievance and appeal process. Medical grievances are first forwarded to the medical services staff who attempt an informal resolution of the matter. If this fails, the grievance goes to the Medical Grievance Committee, which conducts a hearing. If the matter is still not resolved, the inmate may once again appeal. DOC Policy 4.4 (revised May 15, 1998).

The amended complaint alleges that plaintiff filed grievances, letters, and made verbal complaints, but there was no actual response or solution within a reasonable time. (D.I. 25) Plaintiff submits exhibits that include grievances filed and letters written to Taylor and Malaney. (D.I. 55, Ex. A at 1-5) Given that exhaustion turns on the documents related to plaintiff's grievances, the Third Circuit has held that authentic documents may be considered without converting a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d at 222.

The documents submitted by plaintiff indicate that he filed medical grievances for mental health treatment, medications, and dental care, Nos. 21472, 22328, 20470 and 15434. (D.I. 55, Ex. A) The documents further indicate that, at hearings, the DCC staff recommended the withdrawal of grievances 21472, 20470, and 15434 because the matters were in litigation. Id. at Ex. A at 12, 18-19. Also, grievances were returned unresolved for resubmission. Id. at Ex. A at 13.

The documents provided by plaintiff indicate that he filed grievances and was moving toward exhaustion when DCC officials decided to withdraw the grievances because of "litigation." Also, grievances were returned as unresolved. Accordingly, plaintiff's administrative remedies are presumed exhausted, as no further remedies are available to him. Accordingly, the court will deny the motions to dismiss on the issue of failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

C. Medical Needs Claim

Dr. Cannuli, Benton, and Mickens argue that the amended complaint fails to state a claim under § 1983. They specifically argue that the amended complaint does not allege their deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.

The Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment requires that prison officials provide inmates with adequate medical care. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-105, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). In order to set forth a cognizable claim, an...