Williams v. Correct Care Solutions, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 3:16-cv-1259 |
| Parties | CALVIN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Judge Mariani)
Plaintiff Calvin Williams ("Williams"), an inmate who, at all relevant times, was housed at the State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Houtzdale"), and the State Correctional Institution at Waymart, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Waymart"), initiated the above-captioned civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Named as Defendants are Sommers, Glunt, Younkin, Beard, Wetzel, (collectively, "Corrections Defendants"), Dr. Khatri, Dr. Naji, and Correct Care Solutions, Inc. (Id.). Presently pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by Corrections Defendants. (Doc. 23). Despite requesting an extension of time to file a brief in opposition to Corrections Defendants' motion, Williams failed to oppose the motion. (Docs. 33, 34). Consequently, the motion is deemed unopposed and ripe for disposition. See L.R. 7.6 (). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss.
A complaint must be dismissed under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), if it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). The plaintiff must aver "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009).
"Though a complaint 'does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" DelRio-Mocci v. Connolly Prop. Inc., 672 F.3d 241, 245 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In other words, "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Covington v. Int'l Ass'n of Approved Basketball Officials, 710 F.3d 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A court "take[s] as true all the factual allegations in the Complaint and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts, but . . . disregard[s] legal conclusions and threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." Ethypharm S.A. France v. Abbott Laboratories, 707 F.3d 223, 231, n.14 (3d Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Twombly and Iqbal require [a district court] to take the following three steps to determine the sufficiency of a complaint: First, the court must take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim. Second, the court should identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Finally, where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.
Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 212 (3d Cir. 2013).
"[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not show[n] - that the pleader is entitled to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). This "plausibility" determination will be a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id.
However, even "if a complaint is subject to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a district court must permit a curative amendment unless such an amendment would be inequitable or futile." Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 245 (3d Cir. 2008).
Williams alleges that during his incarceration at SCI-Houtzdale, in September 2011, he was improperly prescribed medication that caused his vision to deteriorate. (Doc. 1,17, 40). In September 2011, he "awoke feeling extremely fatally ill", with "burning, throbbing" eyes, hives, nausea, disorientation, and difficulty walking. (Id. at ¶ 21). Williams was immediately treated in the medical department, where he was assessed by "the medical staff" and prescribed moisturizing eye drops. (Id. at ¶ 22). He claims that his condition failed to improve and he was sent to an outside hospital on September 3, 2011. (Id. at ¶ 26). Once at the hospital, he was allegedly diagnosed with Stevens-Johnson syndrome. (Id. at ¶ 28). He claims that a doctor at the outside hospital informed him that he was allergic to the medication given at the prison, which caused the vision issues. (Id.). Williams returned to SCI-Houtzdale on September 7, 2011. (Id. at ¶ 30). He was placed in the prison infirmary for three weeks, and was prescribed eye drops, ointment for his hives, intravenous fluids, and "some kind of oral tablets." (Id.).
Williams alleges that Corrections Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs before and after his treatment at the outside hospital. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 65, 69, 73). He claims that Corrections Defendants were negligent in the care they provided, they conspired to subject Williams to improper medical care, discriminated against him because of his age, violated his rights t equal protection and due process, and Corrections Defendants' actions were in retaliation for Williams' complaints about not receiving adequate medical care. (Id. at ¶¶ 79-82, 95-96, 98-99).
Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code offers private citizens a cause of action for violations of federal law by state officials. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. . . .
Id.; see also Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 284-85 (2002); Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, 1204 (3d Cir. 1996). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege "the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Corrections Defendants argue that Williams fails to state a claim against them because they lack personal involvement in the alleged wrongs. (Doc. 24, pp. 10-12). The Court finds merit in this argument.
Individual liability can be imposed under section 1983 only if the state actor played an "affirmative part" in the alleged misconduct and "cannot be predicated solely on theoperation of respondeat superior." Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1998)). Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207-08; see also Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); Atkinson v. Taylor, 316 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2003). Such allegations, however, must be made with appropriate particularity in that a complaint must allege the particulars of conduct, time, place, and person responsible. Evancho, 423 F.3d at 354; Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207-08. Alleging a mere hypothesis that an individual defendant had personal knowledge or involvement in depriving the plaintiff of his rights is insufficient to establish personal involvement. Rode, 845 F.2d at 1208.
A thorough review of the complaint reveals that there are no allegations against Corrections Defendants Beard and Wetzel. Williams simply lists Beard and Wetzel as Defendants, but fails to mention them in the body of the complaint. Consequently, the complaint against Corrections Defendants Beard and Wetzel is subject to dismissal. To the extent that Williams attempts to hold Corrections Defendants Beard and Wetzel liable based on their supervisory roles, this ground of respondeat superior liability has been squarely rejected by the courts. See Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207. Accordingly, any claims against Corrections Defendants Beard and Wetzel based on a respondeat superior theory of liabilitywill likewise be dismissed.
Regarding Corrections Defendants Sommers, Glunt, and Younkin, the complaint broadly alleges that Williams received inadequate medical care while housed at SCI-Houtzdale. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 21-52). Williams sets forth claims of products liability, violation of constitutional rights, and negligence. However, Williams fails to indicate any product in relation to the products liability claim, fails to indicate the involvement of each individual Defendant, and fails to indicate the role each Defendant played in the alleged violation of his constitutional rights.
Williams generally alleges that, "Defendants at SCI Waymart were aware of all the above stated [medical issues], yet con[]tinued to do nothing to correct or make the above wrongs done plaintiff any...
To continue reading
Request your trial