Bush v. Goodall, 042418 FED3, 17-3568
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||MARY BUSH, Pro Se Daughter, Next Friend and Trustee of Genevieve Bush, Appellant v. KIMBERLY GOODALL, (Administrator) 'Park Lane at Bellingham' (Senior Lifestyles Corporation) Senior Lifestyle Management, LLC, SL Master Lessee II, LLC); DR. SAM J. SUGAR|
|Judge Panel:||Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR. and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||April 24, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted for Possible Dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 February 15, 2018
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 2-17-cv-01379) District Judge: Timothy J. Savage
Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR. and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
Mary Bush appeals from an order of the District Court dismissing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which she filed on behalf of her incapacitated elderly mother. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm.
Bush filed a "next friend" petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of her elderly mother, Genevieve Bush, and paid the $5.00 filing fee. Mary alleged that Genevieve is not competent to manage her own affairs; is a "prisoner" of Kimberly Goodall, the Administrator of Park Lane at Bellingham nursing home and Senior Lifestyles Corporation; and has been detained in the nursing home without due process by Chester County Adult Protective Services and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging since May 18, 2015. Although she styled it as a habeas corpus petition, Mary did not appear to seek her mother's release from the "custody" of the state; rather, she challenged the conditions of Genevieve's "confinement" in the nursing home. Mary alleged that Genevieve is deprived of her loving company because the nursing home has barred her from visiting Genevieve, and that the nursing home is not providing proper medical care for Genevieve, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985(3) and the federal regulations pertaining to skilled nursing facilities. Mary also appeared to allege a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).
Mary further alleged that exhaustion of state remedies was not possible and referred the District Court to a series of state court decisions relating to the matter of Genevieve's care. See Docket Entry No. 10. We note that, in In re: Bush, 2014 WL 10917673 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 24...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP