Erickson v. Pardus

Decision Date04 June 2007
Docket NumberNo. 06–7317.,06–7317.
PartiesWilliam ERICKSON, Petitioner, v. Barry J. PARDUS et al.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court



Imprisoned by the State of Colorado and alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment, William Erickson, the petitioner in this Court, filed suit against prison officials in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. He alleged that a liver condition resulting from hepatitis C required a treatment program that officials had commenced but then wrongfullyterminated, with life-threatening consequences. Deeming these allegations, and others to be noted, to be “conclusory,” the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of petitioner's complaint. 198 Fed.Appx. 694, 698 (2006). The holding departs in so stark a manner from the pleading standard mandated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that we grant review. We vacate the court's judgment and remand the case for further consideration.

Petitioner was incarcerated in the Limon Correctional Facility in Limon, Colorado, where respondents Barry Pardus and Dr. Anita Bloor were working as prison officials. After Dr. Bloor removed petitioner from the hepatitis C treatment he had been receiving, petitioner sued under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining, inter alia, that Dr. Bloor had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by demonstrating deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See, e.g., Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–105, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) ([D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain ... proscribed by the Eighth Amendment,” and this includes “indifference ... manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed” (footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35–37, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993).

Petitioner based his claim on the following allegations, which we assume to be true for purposes of review here: Officials at Colorado's Department of Corrections (Department) diagnosed petitioner as requiring treatment for hepatitis C. After completing the necessary classes and otherwise complying with the protocols set forth by the Department, petitioner began treatment for the disease. The treatment, which would take a year to complete, involved weekly self-injections of medication by use of a syringe.Soon after petitioner began this treatment, prison officials were unable to account for one of the syringes made available to petitioner (and other prisoners) for medical purposes. Upon searching, they found it in a communal trash can, modified in a manner suggestive of use for injection of illegal drugs. Prisoner Complaint in Civ. Action No. 05–CV–00405–LTB–MJW (D.Colo.), p. 3 (hereinafter Petitioner's Complaint).

Prison officials, disbelieving petitioner's claim not to have taken the syringe, found that his conduct constituted a violation of the Colorado Code of Penal Discipline for possession of drug paraphernalia. Letter from Anthony A. DeCesaro to William Erickson (Sept. 30, 2004), attached to Petitioner's Complaint. This conduct, according to the officials, led to the “reasonable inference” that petitioner had intended to use drugs, so the officials removed petitioner from his hepatitis C treatment. Ibid. “The successful treatment of Hepatitis C is incumbent upon the individual remaining drug and alcohol free to give the liver a better chance of recovery,” they indicated, ibid., an explanation they later offered to defend against petitioner's allegations of cruel and unusual punishment, see Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in Civ. Action No. 05–CV–00405–LTB–MJW, p. 10. Assuming that a person in the course of this treatment takes illicit drugs, the prison's protocol mandates a waiting period of one year followed by a mandatory drug education class lasting six months. Brief in Opposition 4. Petitioner therefore could face a delay of some 18 months before he would be able to restart treatment.

In his complaint petitioner alleged Dr. Bloor had “removed [him] from [his] hepatitis C treatment” in violation of Department protocol, “thus endangering [his] life.” Petitioner's Complaint 2. Petitioner attached to the complaint certain grievance forms. In these he claimed, among other things, he was suffering from “continued damage to [his] liver” as a result of the nontreatment. Colorado Dept. of Corrections Offender Grievance Form (June 30, 2004). The complaint requested relief including damages and an injunction requiring that the Department treat petitioner for hepatitis C “under the standards of the treatment [protocol] established by [the Department].” Petitioner's Complaint 8.

Three months after filing his complaint, and well before the District Court entered a judgment against him, petitioner filed a Motion for Expedited Review Due to Imminent Danger in Civ. Action No. 05–B–405 (MJW) (D.Colo.). Indicating it was “undisputed” that he had hepatitis C, that he met the Department's standards for treatment of the disease, and that “furtherance of this disease can cause irreversible damage to [his] liver and possible death,” petitioner alleged that “numerous inmates” in his prison community had died of the disease and that he was “in imminent danger” himself “due to [the Department's] refusal to treat him.” Ibid. He had identified similar allegations in an earlier filing, explaining that “his liver is suffering irreversible damage” due to the decision to remove him from treatment and that he “will suffer irreparable damage if his disease goes untreated.” Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate's Recommendations in Civ. Action No. 05–CV–00405–LTB–MJW (Feb. 27, 2005), p. 3.

Respondents answered these filings with a motion to dismiss. The Magistrate Judge recommended, as relevant, that the District Court dismiss the complaint on the ground it failed to allege Dr. Bloor's actions had caused petitioner “substantial harm.” Recommendation on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 9, 2006), p. 12. The District Court issued a short order indicating its agreement with the Magistrate Judge and dismissing the complaint.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. It quoted extensively from the Magistrate Judge's discussion of “substantial harm” before holding that petitioner had made “only conclusory allegations to the effect that he has suffered a cognizable independent harm as a result of his removal from the [hepatitis C] treatment program.” 198 Fed.Appx., at 698. Acknowledging decisions by courts that have found Eighth Amendment violations when delays in medical treatment have involved “life-threatening situations and instances in which it is apparent that delay would exacerbate the prisoner's medical problems” (and that have, moreover, indicated the Eighth Amendment “protects against future harm to an inmate”), id., at 697 (internal quotation marks omitted), the court nevertheless found petitioner's complaint deficient: Petitioner had, according to the court, failed to “allege that as a result of the discontinuance of the treatment itself shortly after it began or the interruption of treatment for approximately eighteen months he suffered any harm, let alone substantial harm, [other] than what he already faced from the Hepatitis C itself,” id., at 698 (internal quotation marks omitted). Having reached this conclusion, the court saw no need to address whether the complaint alleged facts sufficient to support a finding that Dr. Bloor had made her decisions with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Id., at 697, 698 (internal quotation marks omitted).

It may in the final analysis be shown that the District Court was correct to grant respondents' motion to dismiss. That is not the issue here, however. It was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the allegations in question, concerning harm caused petitioner by the termination of his medication, were too conclusory to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54796 cases
  • Koch v. Ahlin, 1:18-cv-00546-LJO-GSA-PC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • December 19, 2019
    ...court is to liberally construe the pleadings and accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal ......
  • Blankenship v. Napolitano
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Southern District of West Virginia
    • March 31, 2020
    ...provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing ... entitle[ment] to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ; Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007). The required "short and plain statement" must provide " ‘fair notice of what the ... claim is an......
  • CONSERVANCY of Sw. Fla. v. UNITED States FISH, Case No. 2:10-cv-106-FtM-SPC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • April 6, 2011
    ...all well-pleaded factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 406 (2002). "To survive dismissal, the complaint's allegations must plausiblyPage 27suggest t......
  • Riddick v. Watson
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • November 25, 2020
    ...motion to dismiss, a district court must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007). Plaintiff alleges the following facts. At approximately 4:30 p.m. on August 21, 2017, Deputy J.A. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • May 4, 2010
    ...Employment Comm. v. United Assoc. of Pipe Fitting Indep. Local 120 , 9 F.Supp. 2d 836 (N.D. Ohio 1998), §9:35 Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89 (2007), §§2:03, 7:80 Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins , 304 U.S. 64 (1938), §8:13 Eriksen v. Metro Life Ins. Co. , 39 F.Supp. 2d 864 (E.D. Mich. 1999), §11......
  • Iqbal 'Plausibility' in Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Litigation
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 71-2, January 2011
    • January 1, 2011
    ...not necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555); see also id. at 93 (“It may in the final analysis be shown that the District Court was correct......
  • Prisoners' Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...(deliberate indifference claim where prisoner exposed to unreasonable risks of serious damage to future health); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 92-94 (2007) (deliberate indifference claim where off‌icials terminated prisoner’s medical treatment for life-threatening liver condition); see, ......
  • The pleading problem.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 62 No. 5, May 2010
    • May 1, 2010 filing a complaint that alleged a claim unrecognized by the Sherman Act, namely, a claim of anticompetitive parallel conduct."). (72.) 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (per (73.) Erickson emphasized that "when ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual al......
  • 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