Camacho v. Beers

ROBERTO CAMACHO, JR., Plaintiff, v. C.O. BEERS, C.O. L. JOHNSON, C.O. BREWER, C.O. TIMBERMAN, C.O. GANNON,C.O. CAVANAUGH, SERGEANT F.J. JOHNSON, CAROL SCIRE,STEPHANIE WOOD, MARK CAPOZZA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,and LIEUTENANT R. WASHINGTON, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 16-1644

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

November 15, 2017

Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

Re: ECF Nos. 17 and 38

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KELLY, Chief Magistrate Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Roberto Camacho, Jr. ("Plaintiff") initiated this action by the filing of a civil complaint on November 8, 2016. ECF No. 4. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges violations of the Eighth Amendment (Counts I - III), violation of the First Amendment (Count IV), violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. ("ADA"), and Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. (Counts V and VI) and state law claims of assault and battery (Count VII) as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VIII).

Presently before the Court are the Partial Motions to Dismiss filed on behalf of C.O. Beers, C.O. L. Johnson, C.O. Brewer, C.O. Timberman, C.O. Gannon, C.O. Cavanaugh, Sergeant F.J. Johnson, Carol Scire, Stephanie Wood, Mark Capozza, Lieutenant R. Washington, and the Department of Corrections (collectively, "Defendants"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF Nos. 17 and 38. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motions will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is presently an inmate at SCI-Huntingdon, in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. Sometime prior to his incarceration in 2009, Plaintiff was involved in a traffic accident in which his left elbow was crushed. ECF No. 4 ¶¶ 18, 48. As a consequence, he allegedly sustained nerve damage, and lost strength and fine motor control in his dominant left hand. Id. ¶ 18. Writing subsequently became difficult, and Plaintiff was unable to complete writing more than one or two sentences at a time. Id. ¶ 19-20.

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") arranged for Plaintiff to undergo orthopedic surgery in an effort to treat these limitations. Id. ¶ 22. The surgical procedure was performed in October of 2012. Id. On or about October 21, 2012, Plaintiff was allegedly assaulted by a kitchen supervisor at SCI-Huntingdon when Plaintiff's arm was struck with a pot lid. Id. As a result, Plaintiff sustained injuries to the surgical site. Id. ¶¶ 22, 48. Additional surgery was purportedly required, but Plaintiff was forced to retain the services of an attorney because the DOC did not immediately arrange for the same. Id. ¶ 23. At some point thereafter, Plaintiff also filed a grievance pertaining to his assault by the kitchen supervisor. Id. ¶ 66. The DOC eventually approved Plaintiff for a second operation on July 11, 2014. Id. ¶ 24.

In preparation for the second surgery, Plaintiff was transported from SCI-Huntingdon to SCI-Pittsburgh in June of 2014. Id. The procedure was performed on July 11, 2014, as scheduled, on an out-patient basis. Id. ¶¶ 24, 26. Plaintiff was returned to SCI-Pittsburgh the same day, and was placed in the medical unit of the prison for several hours. Id. ¶ 28. While under observation in the medical unit, Plaintiff asked if he could have something to eat, as he hadbegun fasting in advance of his surgery at or around 5:00 p.m. on July 10, 2014. Id. ¶¶ 26, 28. C.O. L. Johnson refused the request. Id.

On the same evening as the second surgery and following release from the medical unit, C.O. Beers accompanied Plaintiff from the medical unit to the restrictive housing unit ("RHU"). Id. ¶ 31. While en route, C.O. Beers allegedly "slammed" Plaintiff's left arm into the doorway of an elevator. Id. Following his operation, Plaintiff's left arm had been placed into a cast; the cast cracked as a result of the conduct of C.O. Beers. Id. When confronted by Plaintiff, C.O. Beers "laughed and said, 'Oops.'" Id. ¶ 32. Plaintiff requested to be taken back to the medical unit at that time, but C.O. Beers declined to do so. Id. ¶ 33. C.O. Beers further declined to summon medical staff once Plaintiff was placed in his RHU cell. Id. Plaintiff claims that, by that point, blood was seeping through the crack in the cast. Id. ¶ 34.

During the next two days, on July 12 and 13, 2014, Plaintiff repeatedly asked C.O. Brewer, C.O. Timberman, C.O. Gannon, and Lieutenant R. Washington to allow him to see the prison physician or other staff from the medical unit. Id. ¶ 35. All requests were refused. Id. Plaintiff was unable to make written requests due to his inability to write with his left hand. Id. ¶ 36. As such, all of his requests for medical attention were made verbally. Id.

Over the course of the first week following the July 11, 2014, surgery, Plaintiff repeatedly asked C.O. Beers, C.O. L. Johnson, C.O. Brewer, C.O. Timberman, C.O. Gannon, C.O. Cavanaugh, and Sergeant F.J. Johnson to allow him to take a shower in order to keep his incision site clean, per hospital orders. Id. ¶ 41. Plaintiff's requests were denied. Id. As such, Plaintiff allegedly attempted to clean his arm using water from the sink in his cell. Id. ¶ 42. When he also attempted to bathe using water from the sink, water would flow into his surgical dressings and cast, causing the dressing and cast to deteriorate. Id. ¶¶ 42-44. The dressings andcast began to smell, and caused Plaintiff's sutures to become irritated. Id. ¶ 43. Ultimately, Plaintiff removed the cast himself. Id. ¶ 44.

In the ensuing weeks - through approximately August 5, 2014 - Plaintiff continued to make primarily verbal requests to see the prison physician or medical staff. Id. ¶ 45-47. In addition to denial of same, C.O. Beers, C.O. L. Johnson, C.O. Brewer, C.O. Timberman, C.O. Gannon, C.O. Cavanaugh, Sergeant F.J. Johnson, and Lieutenant R. Washington refused to provide Plaintiff with prescribed pain medication, ice for swelling, and cushioning or padding to elevate his arm. Id. ¶¶ 39-40. When permitted to leave his cell, these Defendants would cuff his wrists in such a way as to cause unnecessary pain and further damage to his cast. Id. ¶¶ 37-38.

On July 24, 2014, Plaintiff - through counsel - initiated a claim in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania regarding the kitchen assault at SCI-Huntingdon, and subsequent denials of prompt medical care. Id. ¶ 25. It is believed that Defendants' knowledge of that claim, as well as earlier grievances filed by Plaintiff against SCI-Huntingdon staff, prompted his alleged mistreatment at SCI-Pittsburgh. Id. ¶¶ 29-30.

On November 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint. ECF No. 4. On March 3, 2017, Defendants C.O. Beers, C.O. L. Johnson, C.O. Brewer, C.O. Timberman, C.O. Gannon, C.O. Cavanaugh, Sergeant F.J. Johnson, Carol Scire, Stephanie Wood, Mark Capozza, and the Department of Corrections filed the initial Partial Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support seeking dismissal of Counts II, III, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the Complaint for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. ECF Nos. 17-18. Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition was filed on April 25, 2017. ECF No. 29. Following the identification of Lieutenant John Doe as Lieutenant R. Washington, the caption of the instant action was amended to substitute Lieutenant Washington for Lieutenant Doe. ECF No. 27. On July 26, 2017, Defendant Lieutenant R.Washington filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal and Brief in Support, seeking dismissal of Counts II and VIII. ECF Nos. 38-39. Plaintiff filed a Brief in Opposition on August 11, 2017. ECF No. 42. The matter is fully briefed, and ripe for disposition.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of a claim, and show that the pleader is entitled to relief. Dismissal of a complaint or portion of a complaint is justified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) when a claimant fails to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Avoiding dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) requires a pleading party's complaint to provide "enough factual matter" to allow the case to move beyond the pleading stage of litigation; the pleader must "'nudge his or her claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.'" Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234-35 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atlantic Co. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 570 (2007)).

In assessing the merits of a claim subject to a motion to dismiss, a court must engage in a two-part analysis. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009). First, factual and legal elements of a claim must be distinguished. Id. Second, it must be determined whether the facts as alleged support a "plausible claim for relief." Id. In making the latter determination, the court must be mindful that the matter pleaded need not include "detailed factual allegations," Phillips, 515 F.3d at 231 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555), and the court must construe all alleged facts, and draw all inferences gleaned therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 228 (citing Worldcom, Inc. v. Graphnet, Inc., 343 F.3d 651, 653 (3d Cir. 2003)).

A well-pleaded complaint, even when "it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of...facts is improbable," will not be dismissed as long as the pleader demonstrates that his or her claim is plausible. Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56). A pleading party need only "put forth allegations that 'raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element[s].'" Fowler, 578 F.3d at 213 (quoting Graff v. Subbiah Cardiology Assoc., Ltd., 2008 WL 2312671 (W.D. Pa. June 4, 2008)). Moreover, pleadings filed by pro se litigants are to be liberally construed, and courts should be flexible when applying procedural rules. Mala v....