Gibson v. SCI Coal Twp. Med. Dep't

1

TAIJEEM GIBSON, Plaintiff v. SCI COAL TOWNSHIP MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants

No. 1:22-cv-00618

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

March 7, 2023

MEMORANDUM

Kane Judge

Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to partially dismiss the complaint filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 10.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the motion and will direct Defendants to answer the complaint.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

Pro se Plaintiff Taijeem Gibson (“Plaintiff'), who is a convicted and sentenced state prisoner in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”), is presently incarcerated at State Correctional Institution Coal Township (“SCI Coal Township') in Coal Township, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff commenced the above-captioned action on April 28, 2022, by filing a complaint pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983') against the following defendants, all of whom appear to have worked at SCI Coal Township during the period of time relevant to his claims: (1) Thomas McGinley, Superintendent of SCI Coal Township; (2) the Medical Department at SCI Coal Township (“Medical Department'); (3) Lynette Rich, a “CHCA' in the Medical Department; (4) Blanche Milo, a supervisor in the Medical Department; and (5) Brian Toms, the Unit Manager of J-Unit at SCI Coal Township (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. No. 1 at 1-3.) In addition to the complaint, Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) and his prisoner trust fund account statement (Doc. No. 3).

On May 3, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of the complaint on Defendants. (Doc. No. 6.) In the interest of administrative judicial economy, the Court requested that Defendants waive service pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) On May 31, 2022, Defendants collectively filed their waiver of service. (Doc. No. 9.)

Then, on June 27, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to partially dismiss the complaint (Doc. No. 10), along with a brief in support thereof (Doc. No. 11). Following an extension of time (Doc. Nos. 12, 13), Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition on July 27, 2022. (Doc. No. 14.) Defendants have not filed a reply brief, and the time period for doing so has passed. Accordingly, Defendants' motion is ripe for disposition.

B. Factual Background

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, in October of 2021, he filed a “Sick Call Request” to the Medical Department, complaining about a lump in his left testicle. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff alleges that, soon after, he was seen by “medical staff[,]” who scheduled him for an ultrasound. (Id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges that his appointment was scheduled for October 19, 2022, but that he was unable to attend this appointment because he is unvaccinated and, thus, needed an escort to the Medical Department by a corrections officer, which, he alleges, was not provided for him. (Id. ¶¶ 3; id. 13-17 (explaining that SCI Coal Township had a procedure pursuant to which unvaccinated inmates needed an escort to move outside of their designated housing unit).) Plaintiff alleges that he was subsequently scheduled for numerous appointments but that he was also unable to attend those appointments because an escort was not provided for him. (Id. ¶ 4 (citing the specific dates).)

Plaintiff alleges that, on March 8, 2022, he was escorted to the Medical Department. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges that, upon his arrival, however, he was informed that the individual who performs the ultrasounds had left and that, as a result, he did not receive an ultrasound. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that he thereafter filed “Sick Call Requests[,]” complaining of pain in his testicles. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff alleges that, on March 22, 2022, he was again escorted to the Medical Department, at which time he received an ultrasound. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff alleges that he was subsequently seen by “a PA from the Medical Department[,]” who explained that the lump in his testicle was either a cyst or cancer. (Id. ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff alleges that, on April 13, 2022, he was seen by Defendant Medical Department and given his results for the ultrasound. (Id. ¶ 19.) Ultimately, it was determined that Plaintiff has a cyst, fluid, and calcified stones in his left testicle. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he asked “the P.A.” if a medical procedure could remove the cyst, fluid, and calcified stones. (Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff alleges that he was told “yes, but the medical department will not authorize such procedure[.]” (Id. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff alleges he explained that he was in constant pain, but that he was told to take Tylenol or Motrin. (Id.; id. ¶ 11 (alleging that he has been dealing with pain for over six (6) months and has not been “given anything to help deal with it”); id. ¶ 21 (alleging that he is “very uncomfortable and in pain[,] cannot sit properly without discomfort or pain, and the slightest movements when [he is] in pain causes [his] testicles to swell”).)

Plaintiff alleges that he raised his complaints through the grievance process at SCI Coal Township and that he “spoke” to Defendant McGinley about his “medical situation[.]”^[1](Id. ¶ 23.) Plaintiff alleges that he also “spoke” with Defendant Toms about the “escort situation” at SCI Coal Township and about how, because an escort was not provided for him on several occasions in which he had scheduled medical appointments, this caused him to suffer from “more pain[.]” (Id. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Toms stated that it “wasn't his problem” and that when Plaintiff asked “how it isn't his problem[,]” Defendant Toms instructed Plaintiff to go to his cell or the Restricted Housing Unit. (Id.) Plaintiff finally alleges that he also explained his “situation” to Defendant Milo but that Defendant Milo told Plaintiff that his medical issue was “frivolous[.]” (Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff also alleges that “this was supported by [Defendant Rich] through the [DOC] [g]rievance process.” (Id.)

In connection with all of these allegations, Plaintiff asserts that “medical staff and prison officials” intentionally delayed and denied him access to medical treatment, despite knowing that he had medical appointments and that there was a medical procedure that could eliminate his pain and suffering. (Id. ¶ 27; id. ¶ 29 (alleging that Defendant Medical Department and “[p]rison officials” knew of his need for medical treatment but intentionally refused to provide such treatment and also delayed such treatment based on a non-medical reason”).)^[2] As a result, Plaintiff asserts a violation of his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as a violation of Sections 13, 25, and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. (Id. at 12.) As for relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief in the form of medical treatment and procedures to address the cyst, fluid, and calcified stones in his left testicle. (Id. at 13.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal notice and pleading rules require the complaint to provide the defendant notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must present facts that, accepted as true, demonstrate a plausible right to relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” a complaint may nevertheless be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for its “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court accepts as true all factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009); In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300, 314 (3d Cir. 2010). To prevent dismissal, all civil complaints must set out “sufficient factual matter” to show that their claims are facially plausible. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). The plausibility standard requires more than a mere possibility that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct: “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not ‘show[n]' - ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.'” See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

Accordingly the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has identified the following steps that a district court must take when reviewing a 12(b)(6) motion: (1) identify the elements that a plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify any conclusory allegations contained in the complaint that are “not entitled” to the assumption of truth; and (3) determine whether any “well-pleaded factual allegations” contained in the complaint “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” See Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The Third Circuit has specified that in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, “a court must consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these...