Robert Saunders v. Carl Danberg , 613 F. App'x 94 ( 2015 )

DLD-225 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-4643
___________
ROBERT SAUNDERS,
Appellant
v.
FORMER COMMISSIONER CARL C. DANBERG; GOVERNOR JACK MARKELL;
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS; COMMISSIONER ROBERT COUPE;
CONNECTIONS CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES; DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; FORMER WARDEN PERRY PHELPS;
DEPUTY WARDEN JAMES SCARBOROUGH; JAMES WELCH, BUREAU CHIEF;
JOHN BRENNAN, SECURITY CHIEF; DR. LAURIE SPRAGA, MEDICAL
DIRECTOR; MICHELLE SEWELL-JONES, DIRECTOR OF NURSING; DR. DALE
RODGER-MORALE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D. Del. Civ. No. 13-cv-01276)
District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 28, 2015
Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 2, 2015 )
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Roberts Saunders, a Delaware state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order of
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissing his complaint.
For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Saunders filed a complaint in District Court claiming a violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights based on the denial of medical treatment. The District Court reviewed
the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A and ruled that Saunders
had failed to plead facts showing that the named defendants were personally involved in
the alleged constitutional violations. The District Court dismissed the complaint, but
allowed Saunders to amend it.1 Saunders then filed a Second Amended Complaint
claiming the denial of medical treatment and violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”). The District Court ruled that
Saunders had again failed to plead facts showing the named defendants’ personal
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1
Saunders had also sought to raise a retaliation claim in an amended complaint. The
District Court ruled that Saunders must file a separate complaint raising this claim, which
did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claims in his original
complaint.
2
involvement, and that he had failed to state a claim under the ADA. The District Court
dismissed the complaint and gave Saunders one more opportunity to amend.
Saunders filed a Third Amended Complaint, which he stated “totally rewrites the
original Complaint.” Third Am. Compl. at 4 n.1. Saunders named as defendants
Delaware Governor Jack Markell, former Delaware Department of Corrections (“DOC”)
medical contractor Correct Care Solutions, former DOC Commissioner Carl Danberg,
DOC Commissioner Robert Coupe, DOC medical service provider Connections
Correctional Healthcare Services, the DOC, former James T. Vaughn Correctional Center
(“VCC”) Warden Perry Phelps, VCC Deputy Warden James Scarbrough, VCC Security
Chief John Brennan, DOC Bureau Chief James Welch, former Medical Director Dr.
Laurie Spraga, former Director of Nursing Michelle Swell-Jones, and former Medical
Director Dr. Dale Rodgers-Morales.
Saunders alleged that he suffers from high blood pressure, brain tumors, a cyst on
his kidney, degenerate disc disease, and eye problems. He averred that during the past
two years, kidney specialist Dr. Michael Yaslow ordered that he see a urologist to treat
his kidney condition, but that defendants Spraga, Swell-Jones, and Rodgers-Morales
stated that other options must be sought due to the cost of such treatment. Saunders
alleged that he is in constant pain and has uncontrolled urination.
Saunders also alleged that he is constant pain due to degenerate disc disorders, that
doctors conveyed years ago that his problems could be corrected with surgery, but that
surgery was denied due to its cost. Saunders stated that the denial of surgery has resulted
3
in a bone spur on his spine and that a MRI has been ordered to determine the extent of the
damage. Saunders averred that prison overcrowding and attempts to cut costs are causing
the denial of care to prisoners. He claimed violations of his Eighth Amendment rights.
Saunders also claimed violations of the ADA based on his placement by defendant
Brennan in a housing area that was not ADA-compliant. Saunders stated that he fell in a
shower that lacked handrails. He averred that after the fall he was placed, without any
explanation, in administrative segregation for 45 days and then returned to the general
population.
The District Court dismissed Saunders’ constitutional claims against Markell,
Danberg, Coupe, Phelps, and Scarbrough because Saunders had alleged no facts
regarding their personal involvement, but had named them as defendants based on their
supervisory positions. The District Court also found that Saunders’ allegations directed
towards Spraga, Swell-Jones, and Rodgers-Morales were insufficient to state a
constitutional claim, and that Saunders had not identified any specific policies supporting
his claim that care was denied to reduce costs. The District Court also noted that the
DOC is immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
With respect to Saunders’ ADA claim, the District Court stated that he had not set
forth facts regarding his housing conditions in administrative segregation and in the
general population thereafter, and found his allegation of an isolated instance of failing to
accommodate insufficient to state a claim. The District Court also found frivolous any
constitutional claims based on Saunders’ allegations that his grievances were denied or
4
not addressed and his allegations that he was placed in administrative custody. The
District Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii), and (iii) and
§ 1915A(b)(1) and (2), and held that allowing further amendment of the complaint would
be futile. This appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review
over the District Court’s decision. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir.
1999).
We find no error in the dismissal of Saunders’ constitutional claims against
Markell, Danberg, Coupe, Phelps, and Scarbrough because the complaint does not allege
their personal involvement in the claimed violations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
676 (2009); Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988).
We also agree that Saunders has not stated an Eighth Amendment claim against
Spraga, Swell-Jones, and Rodgers-Morales. To establish an Eighth Amendment violation
based on the denial of medical care, a prisoner must demonstrate deliberate indifference
to his serious medical needs. Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 235 (3d Cir. 2004). The
“deliberate indifference” standard may be met where prison authorities deny a reasonable
request for treatment and expose an inmate to undue suffering or the threat of tangible
residual injury, or where there is knowledge of a need for care and that care is
intentionally denied. Id. The standard may also be met where necessary treatment is
delayed for a non-medical reason. Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999).
Saunders alleged in his complaint that a doctor ordered that a urologist was needed
5
to treat his kidney condition, that Spraga, Swell-Jones, and Rodgers-Morales said that he
must seek other options due to the cost of that treatment, and that he is constant pain as a
result. Saunders’ complaint may plead facts suggesting a possibility of liability, but
under Iqbal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to “‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads facts that allow the court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable. Id. The
plausibility standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id.
Saunders’ Third Amended Complaint lacks sufficient factual matter to allow us to
infer more than the possibility of misconduct. Although detailed factual allegations are
not required, a complaint does not suffice “if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of
‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Saunders has
pleaded no facts stating how Spraga, Swell-Jones, and Rodgers-Morales, who are
described as former Medical Directors and the former Director of Nursing, were each
involved in his care. He has also not alleged that no options other than treatment by a
urologist are available. Saunders also averred that he was denied back surgery because of
the cost, but, as noted by the District Court, Saunders does not identify any prison policy
or other facts that might support his claim.
6
We also agree, for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, that
Saunders does not state a claim under the ADA, or a constitutional claim based on the
denial of his grievances or confinement in administrative segregation. To the extent
Saunders appeals the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel, the District Court
did not abuse its discretion in denying this request.
Because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will summarily
affirm the judgment of the District Court.
7