Miller v. Little
| Docket Number | Civil Action 22-CV-4264 |
| Decision Date | 25 May 2023 |
| Parties | GLENN R. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE LITTLE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Pro se Plaintiff George M. Miller, an inmate at SCI Phoenix filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Miller asserts Eighth Amendment claims related to injuries he sustained while repairing a prison laundry machine. He names sixteen Defendants associated with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and three Defendants associated with Wellpath Holdings, LLC the medical contractor for the DOC. Miller sues all Defendants in their individual and official capacities. For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss Miller's Complaint in part with prejudice and in part without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).[1]Because some of Miller's claims will be dismissed without prejudice, he will be granted the option of filing an amended complaint to attempt to cure the defects discussed below or proceeding only the claims that the Court concludes pass statutory screening.
Miller's allegations center on an accident to his left index finger and the alleged lack of medical care he received for that injury.[3]Specifically, on February 11, 2020, Miller was working in SCI Phoenix's Correctional Industries (“CI”) Laundry Department.[4] (Compl. at 16, 17, 19, ECF No. 6.) He worked as an “inmate preventative maintenance mechanic” on the CI laundry machines. (Id. at 19.) Miller requested tools and equipment from Defendant Paul Evans, including a tool cart, a pass key to unlock the service panels on the laundry machines, and a manual lockout bypass key, which allows the machine to operate uninterrupted while the service panel is open. (Id.) When Miller also requested a pair of “mechanics oil resistant gloves,” he was told by Evans that Defendant Henry Hause, the Laundry Supervisor, had the keys but was not there that day. (Id.) Evans gave Miller black nitrile surgical gloves to use instead. (Id.) Miller also requested an air hose and nozzle wand to remove the dust and dirt from the laundry machines. (Id.) Evans allegedly denied this request, stating that the air hose makes too much noise. (Id.) When Miller suggested that the inmates be provided with ear plugs for the noise, Evans again refused, stating that he did not have the keys to access the ear plugs. (Id.) Instead, Evans gave Miller scraps of t-shirt that were meant to be used as rags. (Id.) Evans told Miller to use the rags to remove the dust and dirt from the machinery. (Id.)
Miller asked two inmate coworkers to stand in front of the towel folding machine while he serviced it. (Id.) He inserted the “manual lockout bypass key” and turned the machine on. (Id.) After putting on the black nitrile surgical gloves, he used the rag scraps - both provided by Evans - to clean “the horizontal drive chain until it was free of all dirt, lint, and oil.” (Id.) While using a rag to clean the “small vertical secondary chain” of “all dirt, lint, and oil,” the rag got caught in the chain causing Miller's left hand to be pulled towards the sprocket assembly and his index finger to be “chopped off.” (Id. at 20.) While pulling himself free from the machine, Miller also injured his right shoulder. (Id.) Miller asked inmate coworkers to find a correctional officer or a CI Laundry staff member. (Id.) Within minutes, Defendants Luis Quintana and Evans, two CI laundry foreman arrived. (Id.) A third CI laundry foreman referred to in the Complaint as “Mr. Holahan” also arrived to assist.[5](Id.) Miller was sent to the nurse triage unit at SCI Phoenix. (Id.) When the nurse asked for Miller's partially-severed finger, Holahan left to retrieve it. (Id.) Medical personnel applied a tourniquet to and bandaged Miller's left arm, and sent him for x-rays. (Id.) Defendant Etta Williams, the Shift Commander Captain requested that the medical staff take several digital photographs of Miller's hand. (Id.)
Miller alleges that medical personnel at the triage unit initiated his transport to an outside hospital. (Id.) However, the transport was allegedly delayed because the escort officers had to wait for Holahan to return with the partially-severed finger. (Id.) When he arrived, the partially-severed finger was still in the black nitrile surgical glove and was not placed on ice. (Id.) When Miller arrived at the hospital, the emergency trauma physician said that the severed finger should have been placed on ice. (Id.) The physician advised Miller that he could not reattach his finger, which left Miller with a stump on his left index finger. (Id.) Miller was returned to the prison with prescriptions and instruction on how to care for the open wound. (Id.)
Miller was scheduled for physical therapy to treat his finger on March 13, 2020, but alleges that prison staff refused to take him to the appointment. (Id. at 21.) He did not attend physical therapy for his finger until 18 months later. (Id.) On March 17, 2020, his finger became “seriously infected.” (Id.) Defendant Dr. Gordon, who is alleged to be employed by Wellpath, ordered a splint for the infected finger. (Id. at 12, 21.) Miller alleges that “[i]mmobilizing [his] amputated index finger with a splint was counter-productive to physical therapy” and “contrary to rehabilitation practices,” which “raise[d] the question of medical practice” on the part of Dr. Gordon. (Id. at 21.) In May of 2021, Miller injured his left hand, including the little finger on his left hand, when he tried to pull himself up to the top bunk of his prison bed. (Id. at 22.) Miller alleges that he had been medically designated to be placed in the bottom bunk but that prison officials never gave him a bottom bunk assignment “due to a communication breakdown between the Medical Department and the Unit Management Team.” (Id.) Miller was also medically approved for an electric shaver on March 2, 2020 and again on August 16, 2021 due to his hand injury. (Id.) However, Miller was not issued a shaver until April 21, 2022, despite his numerous requests to different prison staff members. (Id.)
On November 1, 2021, Miller met with Dr. Williamson,[6]who advised him that the 18-month delay of physical therapy and the “long period of inactivity had caused a calcium build up . . . and a weakening of ligaments” which explained why Miller was not able to bend his finger. (Id.) Dr. Williamson recommended two to three weeks of physical therapy and “corrective surgery” if the therapy did not help restore Miller's ability to move his finger. (Id.) Miller alleges that the physical therapy did not work to restore movement and that he has requested the corrective surgery. (Id.) Dr. Williamson performed surgery on Miller's left hand and left little finger on December 13, 2021. (Id.) His post-op appointment with Dr. Williamson, which was supposed to be in January 2022, had not yet been scheduled by the DOC or Wellpath when Miller filed his Complaint, despite requests by Miller. (Id.)
Attached to Miller's Complaint are over 160 documents comprising of grievances submitted by Miller and responses to those grievances. (See id. at 36-201.) Miller briefly summarizes his grievances and the responses in his Complaint. (Id. at 26-28.) Based on these allegations, Miller seeks over five million dollars of compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 23.)
Although Miller has paid the filing fee in full,[7] the Court has the authority to screen his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116 n.2 (3d Cir. 2000) (). Section 1915A requires that the Court “review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In doing so, the Court must dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof that “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” id. § 1915A(b)(1), or that “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief,” id. § 1915A(b)(2).
Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915A(b)(1) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Neal v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. 96-7923, 1997 WL 338838, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 19, 1997); see also Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the Court must determine whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). ‘“At this early stage of the litigation,' ‘[the Court will] accept the facts alleged in [the pro se] complaint as true,' ‘draw[] all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiff's] favor,' and ‘ask only whether [that] complaint, liberally construed, . . . contains facts sufficient to state a plausible [] claim.'” Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 774, 782 (7th Cir. 2015)). Conclusory allegations do not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. As Miller is proceeding Pro se, the Court construes his allegations liberally. Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2013)).
Miller asserts Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims under 42 U.S.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial