Moore v. Wetzel

• Decision Date: 06 March 2019
• Docket Number: Civil No. 1:18-CV-1523
• Parties: SHAWN MOORE, Plaintiff, v. JOHN E. WETZEL, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

SHAWN MOORE, Plaintiff, v. JOHN E. WETZEL, et al. Defendants.

Civil No. 1:18-CV-1523

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

March 6, 2019

(Judge Rambo)

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I.Introduction

Care for a chronically ill and aging inmate population presents a conundrum for inmates, correctional officials and the courts.This case, which comes before us for consideration of two motions to dismiss, and a motion to strike filed by the defendants, aptly illustrates the legal and medical challenges which institutional health care for a chronically ill inmate population presents.

This is an action filed by the pro se prisoner plaintiff, Shawn Moore, who is currently incarcerated by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections("DOC").Moore alleges that he suffers from a chronic and serious medical condition, a Hepatitis C infection, and brings claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and acted negligently, when they denied him adequate treatment for his Hepatitis C.

For the reasons that follow, we will recommend that the defendants' motions be granted in part and denied in part.

II.Background

The factual background of this case is taken from the well-pleaded facts set forth by the plaintiff in his complaint, which we must accept as true for purposes of evaluating the motions to dismiss filed by the defendants.Those well-pleaded facts recite that Shawn Moore is a state prisoner who suffers from chronic Hepatitis C. (Doc. 1-1, ¶4.)Moore explains that Hepatitis C is a virus which infects the liver.Untreated, Hepatitis C can result in liver inflammation, scarring, cirrhosis, cancer and death.(Id., ¶¶13-23.)By 2013 new anti-viral drugs had been developed which revolutionized the treatment of Hepatitis C.These new anti-viral treatments are now recognized in the medical community as the benchmark medical standards for treatment of this condition regardless of the stage of the disease in particular patients, or whether the infected person is asymptomatic.(Id., ¶¶24-29.)

Notwithstanding these medical advances, Moore alleges that the Department of Corrections adopted a treatment protocol for Hepatitis C treatment of inmates which limited use of anti-viral drugs to those prisoners who were actively suffering from cirrhosis.The upshot of this treatment protocol, according to Moore, was thatmany asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic prisoners like the plaintiff were denied treatment for a known, and potentially deadly, condition until the disease progressed to one of its more severe forms.(Id., ¶¶30-46.)The policy was allegedly dictated not by medical necessity but by cost considerations.(Id.)

Moore has been incarcerated in the state prison system since 2015.(Id., ¶47.)Moore claims that he repeatedly requested testing, liver biopsies, and anti-viral medications, and filed several grievances about his treatment, but was denied these treatments in accordance with this treatment protocol.(Id.,¶¶48-85.)

On the basis of these factual averments, Moore has filed a six count civil complaint against the Department of Corrections, and those correctional official responsible for this treatment protocol.Moore has also sued the corporate health care provider for the Department of Corrections, Correct Care Solutions, Inc.(CCS), and several of CCS's senior medical staff, alleging that these institutional and individual defendants actively assisted in the implementation of this unconstitutional health care policy.(Id.)Having named these institutional and individual defendants, Moore's complaint brings a number of constitutional and common law claims against the defendants.First, at the heart of Moore's complaint is an allegation that this treatment protocol developed by the Department of Corrections and actively implemented by CCS violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment in that it reflected deliberate indifference to his medical needs.Moore has sought both prospective injunctive and declaratory relief, along with compensatory and punitive damages on this Eighth Amendment claim.Moore 's complaint also asserts that the conduct of the defendants violated provisions of the Pennsylvania constitution, as well as the equal protection and due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.Finally, Moore brings state tort law negligence claims asserting that the conduct of the defendants rose to the level of negligence and gross negligence under Pennsylvania law.(Doc. 1-1, Counts I-VI.)

With Moore's claims framed in this fashion, the defendants have moved to dismiss many of Moore's claims on a variety of grounds.(Docs. 4 and 22.)¹The corporate health care provider, CCS, has also moved to strike a certificate of merit filed by Moore in support of his state law medical negligence claim, (Doc. 24) arguing that this certificate of merit is legally insufficient.

These motions are fully briefed by the parties and are, therefore, ripe for resolution.For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the motions should be granted, in part, and denied, in part as follows: First, Counts I and VI of the complaint which allege Eighth Amendment violations but separately seekprospective relief and damages should be consolidated for further proceedings.Second, the motion to dismiss the institutional Eighth Amendment claims lodged against Correct Care Solutions, Inc. should be denied without prejudice.Third, the plaintiff's claims for damages under the Pennsylvania constitution should be dismissed, but the plaintiff should be permitted to continue to seek declaratory and injunctive relief on these state constitutional claims.Fourth, the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection claims should be dismissed.Fifth, the motions to dismiss Moore's pendent state law medical negligence claims should be denied.Sixth, the motion to strike Moore's certificate of merit in support of this state law medical negligence claim should be denied.

III.Discussion

A.Standard of Review - Motion to Dismiss

The defendants have moved to dismiss the claims against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."With respect to this benchmark standard for legal sufficiency of a complaint, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has aptly noted the evolving standards governing pleading practice in federal court, stating that:

Standards of pleading have been in the forefront of jurisprudence in recent years.Beginning with the Supreme Court's opinion in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550U.S. 544(2007) continuing with our opinion in Phillips [v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 230(3d Cir.2008)]and culminating recently with the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal -U.S.-, 129 S. Ct. 1937(2009) pleading standards have seemingly shifted from simple notice pleading to a more heightened form of pleading, requiring a plaintiff to plead more than the possibility of relief to survive a motion to dismiss.

Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 209-10(3d Cir.2009).

In considering whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court must accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.Jordan v. Fox Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Inc., 20 F.3d 1250, 1261(3d Cir.1994).However, a court"need not credit a complaint's bald assertions or legal conclusions when deciding a motion to dismiss."Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906(3d Cir.1997).Additionally, a court need not "assume that a ... plaintiff can prove facts that the ... plaintiff has not alleged."Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526(1983).As the Supreme Court held in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544(2007), in order to state a valid cause of action a plaintiff must provide some factual grounds for relief which "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause ofactions will not do."Id. at 555."Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level."Id.

In keeping with the principles of Twombly, the Supreme Court has underscored that a trial court must assess whether a complaint states facts upon which relief can be granted when ruling on a motion to dismiss.In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662(2009), the Supreme Court held that, when considering a motion to dismiss, a court should "begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth."Id. at 679.According to the Supreme Court, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."Id. at 678.Rather, in conducting a review of the adequacy of complaint, the Supreme Court has advised trial courts that they must:

[B]egin by identifying pleadings that because they are no more than conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth.While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.

Id. at 679.

Thus, following Twombly and Iqbal, a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and conclusions.Rather, a complaint must recite factualallegations sufficient to raise the plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation.As the Third Circuit has stated:

[A]fter Iqbal, when presented with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,

...