James v. Varano
| Decision Date | 31 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:14-CV-01951,1:14-CV-01951 |
| Parties | PARIS L. JAMES, Plaintiff v. DAVID VARANO, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Judge Kane)
On October 8, 2014, Paris L. James, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Coal Township, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Coal Township") filed a 51-page complaint consisting of 260 paragraphs against 16 named individual defendants and a total of 14 "John and Jane Doe" defendants, employed by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections at SCI-Coal Township.
The complaint was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The named individual defendants waived service of the complaint. Excluding the "John and Jane Doe" Defendants, there were two groups of defendants each represented by counsel. The first group consisted of 14 defendants (David Varano, Kathryn McCarthy, Lori Alleman, Thomas Mosier, Keith Tripp, Lieutenant Masser, Sgt. Krzykowski, Sgt. Else, and Corrections Officers Baker, Schoch, Rodriguez, Burrows, Novalis, and Kratz), which the court will refer to as the "Corrections Defendants." The second group consisted of two defendants, physician assistants Brian Davis and Jennifer Daya, who the court will refer to as the "Medical Defendants." James in the complaint raised several claims, including that he was denied adequate medical care, and requested an award of compensatory and punitive damages.
On March 23, 2015, James filed a document entitled "Amended Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section §1983" (Doc. No. 28) which was docketed by the Clerk of Court as a "Proposed Document." The amended complaint named the same two groups of individual defendants as well as a total of 14 "John and Jane Doe" defendants.1 (Id.) By order of September 25, 2015, the original complaint was stricken from the record, the amendedcomplaint was accepted as properly filed, and the Corrections Defendants and Medical Defendants were authorized to file dispositive motions in response to the amended complaint. (Doc. No. 29.)
On October 13, 2015, the Medical Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 30) the amended complaint and on October 27, 2015, a brief in support. (Doc. No. 32.) On October 15, 2015, the Corrections Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 31) the amended complaint and on October 29, 2015, a brief in support. (Doc. No. 33.) On November 4, 2015, James filed a motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 34) to file a brief in opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss. James did not specify which motion to dismiss. Furthermore, also on November 4, 2015, James filed a document entitled "Plaintiff's Motion In Opposition to Defendants (sic) Motion to Dismiss filed Pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)." (Doc. No. 36.) Although docketed by the Clerk as a brief, the document was not a proper brief in opposition. By order of November 5, 2015, the court denied James's so-called motion in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss and granted James's motion for extension of time. (Doc. No. 37.) James was authorized to file a brief in opposition to the motions to dismiss on or before December 30, 2015. (Id.) On December 28, 2015, James complied with the order of November 5, 2015, and filed briefs in opposition. (Doc. Nos. 39, 40.) On January 14, 2016, the motions to dismiss became ripe fordisposition when the Corrections Defendants and Medical Defendants elected not to file reply briefs. For the reasons set forth below, both motions will be granted in part and denied in part.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Under Rule 12(b)(6), we must "accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir.2009) (quoting Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir.2008)). While a complaint need only contain "a short and plain statement of the claim," Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), and detailed factual allegations are not required, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), a complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "[L]abels and conclusions" are not enough, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, and a court "'[is] not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.'" Id. (quoted case omitted).
In resolving the motion to dismiss, we thus "conduct a two-part analysis." Fowler, supra, 578 F.3d at 210. First, we separate the factual elements from the legal elements and disregard the legal conclusions. Id. at 210-11. Second, we "determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a 'plausible claim for relief.'" Id. at 211 (quoted case omitted).
The initial factual allegations in the amended complaint relate to James's confinement at the State Correctional Institution at Forest, Marienville, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Forest") and his subsequent transport to the State Correctional Institution at Smithfield, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Smithfield"), where he was turned over to "John Doe" Correctional Officers from SCI-Coal Township for transport to that facility.
James alleges that on October 8, 2012, while confined in the RHU at SCI-Forest "under administrative custody" he "collapsed" and was then taken to the prison infirmary where he received 10 bags of intravenous fluid for dehydration. (Doc. No. 28, at 6.) James claims that, prior to his collapse, he experienced an inability to breath, dizziness, an irregular and rapid heart rate, excessive sweating and an inability to eat. (Id.) James alleges that he has a history of asthma and uses an inhaler to assist his breathing but that medical personnel at SCI-Forest were not permitting him to have access to the inhaler.2 (Id.)
James claims that he remained in the prison infirmary for "part of the day" of October 9, 2012, but was then released to the RHU "without any specific medical testing" or being provided with his asthma inhaler. (Id.) He then claims that, on October 10, 2012, he was informed that he would be transferred to SCI-Coal Township, "a transfer which had been pending for several months[.]" (Id. at 7.) James claims that he was processed out of SCI-Forest and turned over to transporting correctional officers on October 11, 2012, even though he was "still severally ill" and in need of medical care. (Id.) James states that he was loaded onto a transport van and taken to SCI-Smithfield where he was turned over to transporting correctional officers from SCI-Coal Township. (Id.)
James contends that, upon being turned over to the transporting officers from SCI-Coal Township, John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, he informed them that he was having difficulty breathing, his heart was beating abnormally fast, he was dizzy and feltfaint, and he had asthma and needed his inhaler.(Id.) James claims that the transporting officers observed that he struggled to speak and maintain his balance; and he was sweating profusely, coughing and gasping for air. Id. at 8. James claims that he told John Does #1 and #2 that he had collapsed while housed at SCI-Forest and was treated in the infirmary at that facility for dehydration. He told John Does # 1 and #2 he needed to see medical personnel at SCI-Smithfield, but they ignored his pleas. They told him that he could wait until he arrived at SCI-Coal Township to see medical personnel and that their job was merely to transport him to SCI-Coal Township, and they did not have time to deal with his medical complaints because they had additional inmates to transport after they dropped him off at SCI-Coal Township. (Id. at 8-11.) James claims as a result of the conduct of the transporting officers he suffered unnecessary pain, he continued to struggle to breath, and he remained dizzy and drifted in an out of consciousness. (Id. at 11.)
Upon arriving at SCI-Coal Township, James claims he was unable to exit the van because of his condition and he was forcefully removed from the van by the transporting officers who used unnecessary and excessive force. (Id. at 12.) James alleges he was ushered into the intake area and ordered to stand in a line with other inmates. (Id.) James claims that he was unable to stand so he "broke the line formation" and sat down on a nearby chair but two correctional officers, John Doe #3 and John Doe #4,immediately approached him and ordered him to stand up and return to the line formation. (Id. at 12-13.) James alleges that he attempted to explain that he was an asthmatic and having difficulty breathing as well as suffering from chest pain but John Does # 3 and #4 responded by stating "they didn't give a [expletive] what [his] reasoning was for breaking the line formation, and . . . ordered [him] to stand up and return to the line." (Id.) James claims that he informed John Does #3 and #4 of his recent medical treatment at SCI-Forest and that they were able to observe that he was gasping, coughing, sweating profusely and having difficulty speaking. (Id.) James alleges that because he was unable to comply with the orders, John Does #3 and #4 grabbed him out of the chair and, using excessive and unnecessary force, pinned him against a wall for the purpose of causing physical pain. (Id. at 14.) James claims they started yelling at him "you are getting off on the wrong foot." (Id.)
James claims that while he was pinned against the wall, Defendant Masser, John Does #1, #2 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial