Case Title: Johnson v. Connections Community Support Programs, Inc., et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 426, 2017

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-10-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARCUS JOHNSON,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 426, 2017 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 of the State of Delaware 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. N16C-12-217 
CONNECTIONS COMMUNITY 
§  
SUPPORT PROGRAMS, INC., et al., § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 19, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided:  October 16, 2018 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Marcus Johnson, is serving a sentence in the custody of 
a Delaware correctional facility.  Johnson has filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s order of September 29, 2017, dismissing his civil complaint against 
Connections Community Support Programs, Inc., and several of the company’s 
employees.  Connections Community Support Programs (CCSP) provides medical 
care to inmates incarcerated in Delaware.  Johnson’s complaint asserted liability 
under stand-alone theories of negligent supervision and deliberate indifference of a 
prisoner’s serious medical needs.     
 
2 
 
(2) 
Johnson alleged that he was injured as a result of the defendants’ 
repeated failures to schedule him for a follow-up medical appointment to address a 
sleeping disorder—sleep apnea—which he described as severe.1  Johnson alleged 
that CCSP’s repeated errors and oversights caused a delay of nearly one year during 
which he suffered daily pain and exhaustion from his untreated medical condition.  
Johnson alleged that a CCSP employee advised him in May 2016 that the repeated 
failures to schedule the appointment were due to CCSP being understaffed.  And 
Johnson alleged that, notwithstanding two medical grievance decisions in August 
2016 ruling in his favor and directing that the follow-up appointment be scheduled 
without further delay, CCSP still had not made the appointment at the time he filed 
his complaint in January 2017.     
 
(3) 
In April 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  After 
considering the motion and Johnson’s response, the Superior Court dismissed the 
complaint with prejudice.  This appeal followed. 
 
(4) 
Johnson raises only one argument on appeal—that the Superior Court 
erred when dismissing his deliberate indifference claim under Superior Court Civil 
                                          
 
1 Specifically, Johnson alleged that “every day and throughout the day” he experienced excessive 
daytime sleepiness, depression, dry mouth, dry throat, fatigue, lack of breathing, migraines, blurred 
vision, extreme redness of the eyes, eye strain, excessive throbbing pain in his left and right ears, 
and limited hearing in the right ear.  Pl.’s Am. Compl., Johnson v. Connections Cmty. Support 
Programs, Inc., No. N16C-12-217 (Jan. 25, 2017).        
 
3 
Rule 12(b)(6).  All other claims and issues that Johnson could have raised on appeal, 
but did not, are deemed waived and abandoned.2   
 
(5) 
When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to 
state a claim, the Superior Court must determine whether the plaintiff “may recover 
under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under 
the complaint.”3  We review a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo to determine 
whether the trial judge erred as a matter of law.4  
 
(6) 
It is well-established that “deliberate indifference to serious medical 
needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’ 
proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.”5  To succeed with a claim of deliberate 
indifference, the plaintiff must prove that he has a serious medical need and that the 
defendant knew of the serious medical need and disregarded it.6  A medical need is 
sufficiently serious if a physician has diagnosed it as requiring treatment or if it is 
one that is so obvious that a layperson could easily recognize the need for a 
                                          
 
2 Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993).  On appeal, Johnson does not challenge the 
Superior Court’s dismissal of the two “Jane Doe” defendants, the negligent supervision claim, a 
claim for injunctive relief; and any claims alleging medical malpractice. 
3 Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967, 968 (Del. 1978).  
4 Dunlap v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 878 A.2d 434, 438 (Del. 2005).  
5 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). 
6 Id. at 106. 
 
4 
physician’s attention.7  Courts have long held that deliberate indifference can occur 
when prison medical authorities cause a delay in providing medical treatment.8 
 
(7) 
The individual defendants include four nurses, Cynthia Mallee, Laura 
Brackett, Staci Collins-Young, and Sharon Henderson.  We agree with the Superior 
Court that the plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to show that they had the 
culpable state of mind for a claim of deliberate indifference.  Therefore, the dismissal 
of the complaint as to those four defendants is affirmed.  After carefully considering 
the parties’ briefs and the record, however, we have concluded that the Superior 
Court erred when dismissing Johnson’s deliberate indifference claim as to the 
remaining two defendants, CCSP and Jami Jones, who is alleged to have been 
responsible for seeing that medical requests were handled appropriately.  Johnson 
has alleged more than the ordinary delays attendant to routine prison medical care.  
He claims a serious medical condition left untreated for over a year, two medical 
grievance decisions in his favor finding the need for treatment, and yet at the time 
                                          
 
7 Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 347 (3rd Cir. 1987). 
8 See, e.g., Lee v. Sewell, 2005 WL 3506346, at **2 (3rd Cir. Dec. 23, 2005) (“Short of absolute 
denial, if necessary medical treatment [i]s . . . delayed for non-medical reasons, a case of deliberate 
indifference has been made out.”); Inmates of Allegheny Cnty. Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 762 
(3rd Cir. 1979) (“Systemic deficiencies in staffing which effectively deny inmates access to 
qualified medical personnel for diagnosis and treatment of serious health problems have been held 
to violate constitutional requirements.”); Deputy v. Conlan, 2007 WL 3071424, at *2 (Del. Oct. 
22, 2007) (“Nonetheless, courts have held that prison officials’ delay in providing surgery, if it 
proves harmful to the prisoner, can amount to deliberate indifference.” (citing Shapley v. Nevada 
Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 408 (9th Cir. 1985))); Szubielski v. Correct Care 
Solutions, LLC, 2014 WL 5500229, at *5 (Del. Ch. Oct. 13, 2014) (denying motion to dismiss 
after determining that the pro se complaint could not be read to foreclose a claim of deliberate 
indifference based on an alleged policy or custom of not hiring adequate medical staff).  
 
5 
of filing the complaint, he still had not received treatment.    Viewing the complaint’s 
factual allegations in a light most favorable to Johnson, we conclude that the claim 
against CCSP and Jami Jones was sufficient to survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) 
for failure to state a claim.9  Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint as to those two 
parties is reversed.      
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART and this matter is 
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Order.  Jurisdiction is not 
retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
9 Haskins v. Kay, 2008 WL 5227187, at *2 (Del Dec. 16, 2008) (“Even if the Superior Court 
ultimately concludes that Haskins’ complaint lacks merit, we conclude that dismissal of the 
complaint at this stage was error because the trial court failed to draw every reasonable inference 
in favor of Haskins.”).