Dukes v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.

250 A.3d 549 (Table)

Michael DUKES, Petitioner v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent

No. 281 M.D. 2020

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted: December 11, 2020

Filed: February 17, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

Before the Court are the Respondent's Preliminary Objections to Petition for Review (Preliminary Objections), in the nature of a demurrer, ² filed by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (Department) in response to pro se petitioner Michael Dukes’ (Petitioner) Petition for Review (Petition), which seeks an order compelling the Department to take action with respect to eyeglasses Petitioner received from prison officials. Upon review, we sustain the Preliminary Objections and dismiss the Petition with prejudice. ³

Petitioner is incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Fayette (SCI-Fayette). See Petition at 5 (pagination supplied beginning on page after cover page), ¶ 1. On April 2, 2019, prison officials issued Petitioner eyeglasses made at SCI-Cambridge Springs. See Petition at 6; see also Inmate's Request to Staff Member dated April 5, 2019 (April 5, 2019 Inmate Request), attached as an exhibit to Petition. ⁴ On April 5, 2019, Petitioner filed an inmate request complaining that the eyeglasses he had been issued were inadequate. See Petition at 6; see also April 5, 2019 Inmate Request. On May 28, 2019, Petitioner filed a second inmate request complaining that the eyeglasses remained inadequate. See Petition at 6; see also Inmate's Request to Staff Member dated May 28, 2019 (May 28, 2019 Inmate Request), attached as an exhibit to Petition. The May 28, 2019 Inmate Request indicates that, on May 9, 2019, Petitioner was seen by an outside optometrist regarding his eyeglasses. See May 28, 2019 Inmate Request. The May 28, 2019 Inmate Request further indicates that SCI-Fayette officials discussed Petitioner's concerns on June 13, 2019, and would have Petitioner evaluated by the on-site optometrist regarding his concerns. See Petition at 6; see also May 28, 2019 Inmate Request. Petitioner was seen by the on-site optometrist on June 17, 2019. See Petition at 7; see also Initial Review Response attached to as an exhibit to Petition (Initial Review Response) at 1.

Petitioner filed Official Inmate Grievance No. 831043 (Grievance) with prison officials on October 21, 2019, claiming that his Department-provided eyeglasses were inadequate. See Grievance, attached as an exhibit to Petition. In the Grievance, Petitioner claimed that medical professionals at SCI-Fayette denied Petitioner prescribed medical treatment and/or acted with deliberate indifference to Petitioner's medical needs by

delay[ing] or den[ying] [Petitioner's] prescribed medical treatment for non-medical reasons, chose an "easier or less efficacious treatment" or continued a course of treatment they know is ineffective.

Grievance at 1 (all capitals omitted). The Grievance referenced four (4) visits Petitioner had with optometrists in relation to his eyeglasses, as well as multiple communications with SCI-Fayette personnel regarding the same. See id. at 1-2.

On November 15, 2019, prison officials denied the Grievance after a review of Petitioner's medical records and discussions with the on-site optometrist revealed that Petitioner's issued eyeglasses were properly made and correctly comported with Petitioner's vision needs. See Initial Review Response at 1. In denying the Grievance, prison officials noted that Petitioner's complaints regarding his issued eyeglasses stemmed from a desire on Petitioner's part to have his eyeglasses made in the community as opposed to in a State Correctional Institution. See id. Petitioner appealed the Grievance determination through the various levels of the Department's internal grievance process until receiving a Final Appeal Decision on March 11, 2020. See Initial Review Response; Appeal to Facility Manager dated December 2, 2019, attached as an exhibit to Petition; Facility Manager's Appeal Response dated January 7, 2020, attached as an exhibit to Petition; Inmate Appeal to Final Review dated January 26, 2020, attached as an exhibit to Petition; Final Appeal Decision dated March 11, 2020, attached as an exhibit to Petition.

On April 15, 2020, Petitioner filed the Petition with this Court, which alleges that the Department violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution ⁵ by denying Petitioner adequate eyeglasses. On June 17, 2020, Petitioner filed Petitioner's Motion for Special and Summary Relief (Application for Relief). ⁶ On August 12, 2020, the Department filed the Preliminary Objections. Petitioner filed Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Preliminary Objections to the Petition for Review on August 21, 2020. On August 27, 2020, this Court filed an order directing the Preliminary Objections to be decided on briefs. The parties have each submitted briefs, and the matter is now ripe for determination.

We begin with a review of the Department's demurrer on the basis that the allegations of the Petition do not amount to a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the allegations fail to state a claim of deliberate indifference to Petitioner's serious medical and/or optical needs, as this objection is dispositive of this matter. See Preliminary Objections at 2-3. ⁷ It is apparent from the Petition and Petitioner's brief that Petitioner seeks to compel the Department to provide him with eyeglasses that meet his subjective approval. See generally Petition; Petitioner's Brief. As such, the Petition presents a request for mandamus relief.

As this Court has explained:

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that compels the official performance of a ministerial act or a mandatory duty. [This Court] may issue a writ of mandamus only where[ ] (1) the petitioner has a clear legal right to enforce the performance of an act, (2) the [respondent] has a corresponding duty to perform the act[,] and (3) the petitioner has no other adequate or appropriate remedy.

Kretchmar v. Dep't of Corr. , 831 A.2d 793, 798 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Further, the Court has noted that mandamus "will not lie to control the exercise of discretion unless the [respondent's] action is so arbitrary as to be no exercise of discretion at all." Id.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments." U.S. Const. amend. VIII. The Supreme Court of the United States has concluded that "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, proscribed by the Eighth Amendment." Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Such indifference may be manifested "by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison [personnel] in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed." Id. at 104-05 (footnotes omitted).

"The deliberate indifference standard contains both an objective element and a subjective element." Kretchmar , 831 A.2d at 798. Accordingly, "[i]n order to state a claim alleging deliberate indifference, an inmate must allege that: (1) the deprivation of medical care is objectively sufficiently serious; and (2) subjectively, that prison officials acted with a culpable state of mind, being aware of, and disregarding, an excessive risk to the inmate's health and safety." Baez v. Pa. Dep't of Corr. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 311 M.D. 2013, filed Mar. 18, 2014), ⁸ slip op. at 6; see also Neely v. Dep't of Corr. , 838 A.2d 16, 20 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).

"[W]here the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain," a serious medical condition exists and the first prong of the deliberate indifference standard is met. Kretchmar , 831 A.2d at 799. However, "[c]ourts will not find deliberate indifference where an inmate is receiving medical treatment, but merely disagrees with his course of treatment[.]" Baez , slip op. at 6. As this Court has explained:

The deliberate indifference test affords considerable latitude to prison medical authorities in the diagnosis and treatment of the medical problems of inmate patients. Courts will disavow any attempt to second-guess the propriety or adequacy of a particular course of treatment ... (which) remains a question of sound professional judgment. Complaints about medical care which merely reflect a disagreement with the doctors over the proper means of treating the prisoner's medical condition do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Absent a showing that prison officials have engaged in constitutionally impermissible conduct, it is not in the public's interest for the court to usurp [Department's] authority and micro-manage the medical needs of a particular inmate.

Kretchmar , 831 A.2d at 799 (internal citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).

Here, the Department does not suggest that Petitioner's visual deficiencies do not represent a serious medical condition, ⁹ but instead argues that Petitioner has not been deprived of medical treatment with regard to his condition. The Department argues that the exhibits attached to the Petition evidence that Petitioner has, in fact, received regular medical attention and assessment regarding the appropriateness and efficacy of his eyeglasses, and that his claims do not amount to allegations of deliberate indifference to his medical condition, but instead merely indicates Petitioner's disapproval of and disagreement with the Department's course of treatment of his optical condition. We agree.

Simply put, the allegations of the Petition do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation based on deliberate indifference to Petitioner's medical/optical needs. On the contrary, review of the...