Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-19-01647/USCOURTS-ca3-19-01647-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 19-1647

__________

SHAHEED WILLIAMS,

Appellant

v.

JAMIE FERDARKO; WILLIAM M. SUTHERLAND; DR. MAXA; 

KIMBERLY SMITH; GARY L. PRINKEY; LISA ZUPSIC

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-17-cv-00313)

District Judge: Honorable Susan Paradise Baxter

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 19, 2020

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, Jr., and PORTER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 9, 2020)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Shaheed Williams appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit for failure

to state a claim. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 19-1647 Document: 54 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2020
2

Williams, who is incarcerated at State Correctional Institution Forest, filed a civil 

rights complaint on November 16, 2017, claiming that various Department of Corrections 

employees (“DOC defendants”) and medical contractors (“medical defendants”) failed to 

provide him with adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment and state 

tort law. Williams alleged that in January 2015 he received surgery to remove a benign 

cyst from his chest that had been causing him pain. After the surgery, he continued to

experience chest and back pain and other symptoms, which he believes to be the result of 

spinal compression from a mass that was mistakenly not removed during the surgery. He 

claimed that the medical defendants refused to order him an MRI and instead prescribed

ineffective treatments that led to permanent damage to his spine. In addition to money 

damages, Williams sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants to order him 

an MRI and a neurological exam.

The DOC defendants moved to dismiss Williams’ complaint under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis that he had not alleged their personal 

involvement as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Adopting the report and 

recommendation of a Magistrate Judge, the District Court granted the motion. The 

medical contractor defendants also moved to dismiss, arguing that Williams’ claims were

barred by the statute of limitations or, alternatively, that Williams had failed to state a 

claim. The District Court granted the motion. Adopting a Magistrate Judge’s oral 

recommendation, the District Court also denied Williams’ request for a preliminary 

Case: 19-1647 Document: 54 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2020
3

injunction for failing to demonstrate either a likelihood of success on the merits or 

irreparable harm. Williams timely appealed.

We have jurisdiction to review the District Court’s judgment pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the District Court’s grant of the motions to dismiss 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Newark Cab Ass’n v. City of Newark, 901 F.3d 146, 151 

(3d Cir. 2018). To survive dismissal, a complaint must “state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face” by including facts that “permit the court to infer more than the mere

possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009); see also

Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244–45 (3d Cir. 2013) (explaining that, 

although held to less stringent standards, pro se litigants are still required to assert 

sufficient facts to support a claim). We accept all factual allegations in the complaint as 

true and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Fleisher v. 

Standard Ins. Co., 679 F.3d 116, 120 (3d Cir. 2012). While we review a district court’s 

ultimate denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, we review factual 

findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. See Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, 

586 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2009). We may affirm on any ground supported by the 

record. See Munroe v. Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist., 805 F.3d 454, 469 (3d Cir. 2015).

We agree with the District Court that Williams failed to state that the DOC 

defendants were personally responsible for violating his Eighth Amendment rights. See

Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988) (explaining that a § 1983 

action cannot be premised on a theory of respondeat superior). Williams’ complaint 

Case: 19-1647 Document: 54 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/09/2020
4

admitted that the DOC defendants had no responsibilities other than administrative 

oversight of inmates’ medical care. Rather, he alleged that because the DOC defendants 

processed his numerous grievances, they knew about the alleged ongoing constitutional 

violation. However, merely responding to or reviewing an inmate grievance does not rise 

to the level of personal involvement necessary to allege a deliberate indifference claim. 

See id. at 1208. And although “[a] high-ranking prison official can expose an inmate to 

danger by failing to correct serious known deficiencies in the provision of medical care to 

the inmate population,” Barkes v. First Corr. Med., Inc., 766 F.3d 307, 324 (3d Cir. 

2014), reversed on other grounds by Taylor v. Barkes, 575 U.S. 822 (2015), Williams 

failed to identify a supervisory policy, practice, or custom that caused him harm, see

Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1118 (3d Cir. 1989).

Williams also failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against the medical 

defendants. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege acts or omissions by prison 

officials that indicate deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–05 (1976); Natale v. Camden Cty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 

575, 582 (3d Cir. 2003). A plaintiff may show deliberate indifference by establishing 

that the defendants “intentionally den[ied] or delay[ed] access to medical care.” Estelle, 

429 U.S. at 104–05. However, “[w]here a prisoner has received some medical attention 

and the dispute is over the adequacy of the treatment, federal courts are generally 

reluctant to second guess medical judgments and to constitutionalize claims which sound 

Case: 19-1647 Document: 54 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/09/2020
5

in state tort law.” United States ex rel. Walker v. Fayette County, 599 F.2d 573, 575 n.2 

(3d Cir. 1979) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Although Williams did not receive the MRI he requested, by his own account he 

was not denied medical care. His complaint states that, between January 2015 and 

August 2017, he received medical attention at least thirty-five times, including having 

numerous x-rays and an EKG taken, being prescribed pain medications, and attending 

physical therapy. He alleged that the medical defendants violated his rights in refusing to 

order him an MRI before first attempting other treatments. However, “mere 

disagreement as to the proper medical treatment” is insufficient to demonstrate an 

adequacy of care claim.” Monmouth Cty. Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 

346 (3d. Cir. 1987); see also Durmer v. O’Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 67 (3d Cir. 1993) 

(explaining that deliberate indifference requires something “more than negligence”). 

Accordingly, Williams failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim.

To the extent that Williams raises his state tort claims on appeal, the District Court 

was correct to dismiss them. The District Court dismissed Williams’ medical negligence 

claim because he failed to file a certificate of merit as required under Pennsylvania Rule 

of Civil Procedure 1042.3 despite receiving notice about the requirement. The District 

Court correctly applied Rule 1042.3 as substantive state law. See Liggon-Redding v. 

Estate of Sugarman, 659 F.3d 258, 264–65 (3d Cir. 2011) (determining that Rule 1042.3 

is substantive under the choice of law doctrine from Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64

(1938)).

Case: 19-1647 Document: 54 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/09/2020
6

In addition, Williams did not state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional 

distress. Such a claim requires a showing of “intentional outrageous or extreme conduct 

by the defendant, which causes severe emotional distress to the plaintiff.” Swisher v. 

Pitz, 868 A.2d 1228, 1230 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005). The alleged conduct must be “so 

outrageous in character, so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of 

decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in civilized society.” 

Reeves v. Middletown Athletic Ass’n, 866 A.2d 1115, 1122 n.5 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) 

(quoting Hoy v. Angelone, 720 A.2d 745, 754 (Pa. 1998)). Williams made no such 

allegations about the medical defendants’ conduct. While he may disagree with the 

treatment he was provided, this does not render the medical defendants’ conduct 

outrageous or extreme.

For essentially the same reasons as above, we conclude that the District Court did 

not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in denying Williams’ request for a preliminary 

injunction. To obtain this “extraordinary remedy,” the moving party must establish: 

“(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that [he] will suffer irreparable harm if the 

injunction is denied; (3) that granting preliminary relief will not result in even greater 

harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) that the public interest favors such relief.” Kos 

Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004). The District Court 

addressed the first and second elements, that Williams failed to establish a likelihood of

success on the merits or irreparable harm, which is sufficient. See Ferring Pharms., Inc. 

v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 765 F.3d 205, 210 (3d Cir. 2014) (“The failure to establish any 

Case: 19-1647 Document: 54 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/09/2020
7

element . . . renders a preliminary injunction inappropriate.”) (internal quotation marks 

and citations omitted).

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Case: 19-1647 Document: 54 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/09/2020