Oliver v. Bucks County Correctional Facility-Warden

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-25-2006
Oliver v. Bucks Cty Corr Fac
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2145
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Oliver v. Bucks Cty Corr Fac" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1043.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1043
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-2145
________________
ANDRE OLIVER a/k/a RONALD SUPPRI,
Appellant
v.
BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - WARDEN
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 04-cv-00544)
District Judge: Honorable John R. Padova
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 19, 2006
Before: McKEE, FUENTES and NYGAARD, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: May 25, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Andre Oliver appeals the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the
warden of the Bucks County Correctional Facility (“BCCF”) on his Eighth Amendment
1
claim of deliberate indifference to hazardous health conditions at the prison. For the
reasons given below, we will affirm.
Oliver was at the BCCF during April 4–15, 2002, housed separately from the
general population. During his last few days at the prison, he claims he developed a
small, itchy boil over his eye. Soon after Oliver was transferred to another prison, the
boil grew and had to be surgically removed. Informed that it was a bacterial infection,
Oliver now believes—based on articles in the Philadelphia Daily News—that the bacteria
was methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (“MRSA”). The articles mention a
successful suit by BCCF inmates based on their exposure to MRSA in that prison during
2001. Oliver believes that his boil was consistent with the symptoms of MRSA and that
he was infected while at BCCF. Oliver’s medical records make no mention of MRSA.
BCCF records show seven MRSA diagnoses spread over the six months previous
to Oliver’s stay. There was also one MRSA diagnosis in April 2002, the month he was
there, but there were no recorded infections in the month before he came to the prison.
The warden acknowledges he was aware of the infections. See Defendant’s Answer to
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, 1. Oliver alleges that the infections were a serious health
hazard in April 2002 and that the warden failed to warn him of the disease or to tell him
how to avoid contracting it. Finally, Oliver claims that several correctional officers and
inmates will testify at trial that they contracted MRSA because were not warned of an
earlier outbreak in the prison.
2
The District Court found that this evidence did not establish a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether the warden knew of and disregarded “an excessive risk to
inmate health and safety.” See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Our review
of an order for summary judgment is de novo, viewing the facts in the light most
favorable to Oliver. Coolspring Stone Supply, Inc. v. Am. States Life Ins. Co., 10 F.3d
144, 146 (3d Cir. 1993). Summary judgment is appropriate if Oliver failed establish a
genuine issue of material fact on an element essential to his case. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
On appeal, Oliver argues that the presence of MRSA in the prison prior to his stay,
combined with the lack of a warning or instructions on avoiding infection, proves that the
Warden was deliberately indifferent to a “substantial risk of serious harm.” Farmer, 511
U.S. at 837. The District Court found on reconsideration that there could not be a known,
substantial risk while Oliver was at the BCCF because there were no MRSA diagnoses in
the month before Oliver’s arrival. In addition, we note that Oliver has not adduced any
evidence which goes to the health conditions of the prison, the warden’s knowledge of the
serious nature of the alleged conditions, the lack of appropriate cleaning procedures, or
whether he contracted or was even exposed to MRSA at all. The only evidence in the
record on MRSA itself is the warden claiming that it is “present in all individuals at all
times” and “not infectious” and an article which suggests that it spreads through bodily
fluids and is dangerous when people are given inadequate medical care.
3
The Supreme Court has held that “a prison official may be held liable under the
Eighth Amendment for denying humane conditions of confinement only if he knows that
inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take
reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 847. There is a question of whether Oliver was at
some risk of catching MRSA in April, because a case of MRSA was diagnosed each
month from October to February and there had been outbreaks in the past. However, the
record is insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was
a “substantial risk of serious harm” during his stay or whether the warden was aware of a
serious risk and indifferent to it. See Hamilton v. Leavy, 117 F.3d 742, 747-48 (3d Cir.
1997) (plaintiff must provide some evidence of prison official’s knowledge of a
substantial risk to survive summary judgment). The District Court did not err in granting
summary judgment to the warden.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
4