Barry Shelley v. George Patrick

DLD-229 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-2281
___________
BARRY E. SHELLEY,
Appellant
v.
GEORGE PATRICK, Superintendent; RANDALL E.
BRITTON, Superintendent; NANCY SMITH, Mail Inspector
Supervisor; NOREEN GREENLEAF, Corrections Health
Care Administrator; DEBRA YOUNKIN, Corrections
Health Care Administrator; PRISON HEALTH CARE
ADMIN STAFF; ERNEST OBROCK, Dentist, PHS William
Civiello; MICHELLE DRISKEL, Corrections Counselor;
MICHELLE IVICIC, Unit Manager, Management of Units;
WILLIAM CIVIELLO
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 3-09-cv-00181)
District Judge: Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 19, 2012
Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 24, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Barry E. Shelley appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his amended complaint.
For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.
I.
The instant case arises from Shelley’s July 2009 complaint alleging violations of
his Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights during his imprisonment, which has since
ended. He alleged improper opening of his legal mail. He also alleged inadequate
medical care for his right foot, which gave him pain, and his teeth, several of whose
cavities had to be filled and several others of which had to be pulled. In June 2010, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss. Shelley failed to respond to the motions to dismiss
over a four-month period. He sought an extension of time to respond, but never
explained why he needed more time. The District Court denied his motion for extension
of time, found the claim of interference with his legal mail time-barred, and dismissed the
rest of the complaint for failure to prosecute; Shelley timely appealed.
On appeal, we agreed that the claim regarding his legal mail was time-barred, and
noted that Shelley’s complaint, as it stood, did not state a facially plausible claim for
relief. However, we declined to affirm the dismissal on that basis because Shelley had
not been given the opportunity to amend his complaint after the defendants moved for
dismissal. We also held that dismissal for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we vacated the District Court’s order and remanded for further proceedings.
Shelley v. Patrick, No. 10-4762 (3d Cir. May 5, 2011).
2
Shelley then filed an amended complaint. Even though we had noted in our
opinion that he had not stated a facially plausible claim for relief, the amended complaint
provided even less detail than the original. Shelley simply directed the District Court to
exhibits (mostly medical records) that he asserted would explain his original claims.
Again, defendants moved to dismiss, citing failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). In response Shelley filed additional medical records. The District Court
granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. Shelley now appeals.
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of orders dismissing
under Rule 12(b)(6) is plenary. Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 230 (3d
Cir. 2008).
III.
When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, a court must accept as true all material
allegations, read the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and decide
whether, under any reasonable understanding of the complaint, the plaintiff may be
entitled to relief. Fleisher v. Standard Ins. Co., 679 F.3d 116 (3d Cir. 2012). To survive
such a motion, a complaint must include sufficient allegations, taken as true, to state a
facially plausible claim to relief. Id.In the context of Eighth Amendment claims based on medical care, a plaintiff
must demonstrate deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble,
3
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). We agree with the District Court that Shelley’s assertion that he
suffered medical problems that defendants failed to treat, supplemented only by various
medical records and bills and an employment assessment form, does not state a facially
plausible claim for relief. His assertion and supplementary documentation in no way
suggest deliberate indifference to a serious medical need or any actual connection to any
claim against defendants.
We further conclude that because Shelley was informed that his original complaint
was deficient, and was given an opportunity to cure that deficiency but filed an amended
complaint containing even fewer factual allegations than the original, the District Court
was correct in dismissing his complaint without providing further leave to amend.
IV.
Thus finding no substantial question raised by this appeal, we will summarily
affirm the judgment of the District Court.
4