Garrett v. Wexford Health

Decision Date10 September 2019
Docket NumberNo. 17-3480,17-3480
Citation938 F.3d 69
Parties Kareem GARRETT, Appellant v. WEXFORD HEALTH; Dr. Naji Muhammad, Medical Director; Debra Younkin, Corrections Health Administrator Nurse; Janet Pearson, Nurse Supervisor; Deb Cutshall, PHS Administrator; Dr. Kathri, Psychologist; Steven Glunt; P.A. Physician Joe; P.A. Physician Casey; Nurse Lori; Nurse Debbie; Nurse Rodger; Nurse John ; Nurse Hanna; Superintendent K. Cameron; Deputy Superintendent David Close; Deputy Superintendent (Security) K. Hollinbaugh; Doretta Chencharick, Grievance Coordinator/Superintendent's Assistant; Joel Barrows, Major of Unit Managers; James Morris, Major of the Guard; Peggy Bauchman, Business Manager; Tracey Hamer, Personnel Officer; Captain Brumbaugh; Captain Miller; Lt. Shea, Security Lieutenant; Lt. Horton; Security Lieutenant; Lt. Lewis, Training Lieutenant; Lt. Glass ; L.S. Kerns-Barr, Hearing Examiners/Committee; F. Nunez ; Jack Walmer, Licensed Psychology Manager; Program Review Committee (PRC); M.J. Barber, Unit Manager, "F" Unit; Mr. Shetler, Unit Manager, "C" Unit; Ms. Cogan, Corrections Counselor, "F" Unit; Mr. Little, Corrections Counselor, "C" Unit; Sgt. Snipes, Block Sergeant "F" Unit; Sgt. James, Block Sergeant "F" Unit; Sgt. Young, Block Sergeant "F" Unit; Medical Officer London; Medical Officer Owens; Officer Garvey, R.H.U. L-5 Security; Officer Uncles, R.H.U. L-5 Security
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Justin Berg [ARGUED], University of Pennsylvania, School of Law, 3400 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, Stuart T. Steinberg, Cory A. Ward, Dechert LLP, 2929 Arch Street, 18th Floor, Cira Centre, Philadelphia, PA 19104, Counsel for Appellant

Samuel H. Foreman [ARGUED], Benjamin M. Lombard, Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton, Fires & Newby, Four PPG Place, 5th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Counsel for Appellees Naji, Cutshall, Nagel, Thornley, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

Mary L. Friedline, Kemal A. Mericli [ARGUED], Daniel B. Mullen, Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania, 1251 Waterfront Place, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Counsel for Appellee Younkin

Cassidy L. Neal [ARGUED], Matis Baum & O’Connor, 912 Fort Duquesne Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Counsel for Appellee Kahtri

Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

SMITH, Chief Judge.

Kareem Garrett sued prison officials claiming that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and that they retaliated against him. The District Court dismissed many of Garrett’s claims for failure to fully exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and dismissed the remainder of his claims for failure to satisfy the "short and plain statement" requirement of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because we conclude that the District Court erred in dismissing the claims, we will vacate and remand this matter for further proceedings.

I.
A.

On February 14, 2014, Garrett, then a prisoner at SCI Houtzdale, filed a six-page pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Garrett alleged that, while incarcerated, he had been prescribed a wheelchair and walker to assist him with mobility. Upon being transferred to SCI Houtzdale in January 2014, medical staff at that facility allegedly discontinued Garrett’s use of a walker and wheelchair, forbade him from receiving walking assistance from other inmates, and discontinued his "psych" medication. According to Garrett, these decisions severely restricted his mobility, caused falls giving rise to further serious injury, and prevented him from accessing both medication and food. In addition, he alleged that the medical staff conducted a rectal examination without his consent and that this amounted to sexual assault. Garrett named six individual defendants1 and sought injunctive and declaratory relief and compensatory and punitive damages. He acknowledged on the first page of his complaint that, although he had filed grievances concerning his claims, the grievance process was not complete.

B.

On February 24, 2014, Garrett’s complaint was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the District in which SCI Houtzdale is located. Garrett filed an amended complaint as of right in March 2014, submitting lengthier and more detailed allegations and adding additional staff as defendants.2 Garrett re-alleged the denial of medication and assistive devices, which led to aggravated injuries and serious falls, missed meals, the inability to receive medication on the "pill line," denial of access to previously prescribed medications, and the inability to bathe himself. And he included new claims. For instance, he alleged that staff issued him "misconducts" for asking for assistance with walking and that they declined to provide health care after falls and laughed when he fell and struggled on the floor. He also alleged that he experienced retaliation for filing grievances and for pursuing his § 1983 complaint. Garrett identified grievances that he had filed concerning some of these claims.

On April 17, 2014, the Secretary’s Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals issued a Final Appeal Decision on seven of Garrett’s grievances concerning his alleged mistreatment at SCI Houtzdale.3 The Final Appeal Decision indicates that "[Garrett’s] concern of not being provided proper medical care was reviewed along with [his] medical record by the staff of the Bureau of Health Care Services. It was determined that the medical care provided was reasonable and appropriate.... No evidence of neglect or deliberate indifference has been found."4 Joint Appendix ("JA") 163.

C.

Soon thereafter, on June 3, 2014, Garrett filed a second amended complaint (SAC), having been granted leave from the District Court to do so. The SAC named more than forty defendants.5 Garrett once again complained of inadequate medical treatment, including the withholding of a walker and wheelchair. He alleged that staff did not provide treatment after falls, relegated him to solitary confinement for asking for help walking, and denied him meals. He added descriptions of additional incidents, including an occasion on March 20, 2014, when medical staff left him strapped to a stretcher for nine hours without treatment, unable to move or relieve himself and, later, denied him access to a handicapped-accessible shower in which to clean up after soiling himself. Garrett also alleged that he was denied access to a "disability gym" as part of his medical treatment. The SAC averred that Garrett had "[e]xhaust[ed] [a]ll [a]dministrative [r]emedies." JA 89.

Several groups of defendants filed motions to dismiss the SAC. In December 2014, Garrett requested a stay until after his expected release in March 2015 in order to attempt to obtain private counsel.6 The Magistrate Judge granted the stay request and directed that Garrett must respond to the motions to dismiss by May 15, 2015.7 In April, Garrett sought an additional stay, which the Magistrate Judge granted.

On July 15, 2015, Garrett notified the District Court that he had been released on May 19, 2015. He also moved to lift the stay and for appointment of counsel. The Magistrate Judge lifted the stay, denied the counsel motion without prejudice, directed Garrett to update his financial information in light of his release from prison, and set a deadline for Garrett to respond to the motions to dismiss.

Garrett timely responded to the motions to dismiss and again sought to amend the complaint. In February 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted his motion to amend.

D.

The Third Amended Complaint (TAC) (which Garrett mistakenly titled "Second Amended Complaint") was docketed on February 5, 2016. In the TAC, in addition to pursuing relief under § 1983, Garrett added a reference to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The TAC added more than thirty additional defendants,8 realleged the prior claims concerning the alleged denial of medical care, and added several supplemental claims, including claims of retaliation.9

Garrett alleged that he had filed grievances as to some of these claims, and the record reflects that he had fully exhausted at least three of them prior to his release.

Several groups of defendants again filed motions to dismiss. In support of dismissal, defendants Khatri, Dr. Naji, Cutshall, Thornley, and Nagel (collectively referred to as the Medical Defendants10 ) argued that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to properly exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA. The Magistrate Judge converted the Medical Defendants’ motions to motions for summary judgment. The remaining defendants (collectively referred to as the Corrections Defendants) did not assert an administrative exhaustion defense. Instead, the Corrections Defendants argued that the TAC failed to comply with Rules 8 and 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and argued that they were entitled to dismissal or, in the alternative, to a more definite statement under Rule 12(e).

On July 14, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (R&R) recommending that the claims against the Medical Defendants be dismissed for failure to fully exhaust administrative remedies. Relying upon our decision in Ahmed v. Dragovich , 297 F.3d 201, 210 (3d Cir. 2002), the Magistrate Judge concluded that Garrett’s status as a prisoner, and the status of the administrative grievance process, must be considered as of the time Garrett filed his original complaint (February 2014), not as of the filing of the TAC (February 2016). Thus, although many of Garrett’s claims were administratively exhausted and he was no longer in prison by the time he filed the TAC, the Magistrate Judge recommended that summary judgment be granted in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
587 cases
  • Corbin v. French
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 28 Noviembre 2022
    ... ... LLC v. Huntingdon Nat'l Bank , 712 F.3d ... 165, 171 (3d Cir. 2013)); see also Garrett v. Wexford ... Health , 938 F.3d 69, 82 (3d Cir. 2019) , cert ... denied , 140 S.Ct ... ...
  • Corbin v. French
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 28 Noviembre 2022
    ... ... LLC v. Huntingdon Nat'l Bank , 712 F.3d ... 165, 171 (3d Cir. 2013)); see also Garrett v. Wexford ... Health , 938 F.3d 69, 82 (3d Cir. 2019) , cert ... denied , 140 S.Ct ... ...
  • Martin v. Wetzel
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 8 Julio 2021
    ...view pro se filings informing the court that the prisoner completed the grievance process as supplements to his complaint. 938 F.3d 69, 81, 81 n. 17 (3d Cir. 2019) (rejecting the defendants' argument that a filing could not qualify as a supplemental complaint because the plaintiff did not m......
  • El-Bey v. Allentown Police Dep't
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 22 Mayo 2023
    ... ... Huntingdon ... Nat'l Bank , 712 F.3d 165, 171 (3d Cir. 2013))); ... see Garrett v. Wexford Health , 938 F.3d 69, 82 (3d ... Cir. 2019) (“In general, an amended pleading ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Prisoners' Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • 1 Agosto 2022
    ...169 F.3d 165, 167 (2d Cir. 1999) (PLRA exhaustion requirement inapplicable when plaintiff no longer in prison); Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 91 (3d Cir. 2019) (same); Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (same); Jackson v. Fong, 870 F.3d 928, 937 (9t......

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