NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 21-2654

__________ ALVIN GEORGE WHITE, JR., Appellant

v. JOHN E. WETZEL; MELINDA ADAMS; MARCIA COMBINE

___________________ _________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-20-cv-01546) Magistrate Judge: Honorable Lisa P. Lenihan

___________________ _________________ Submitted Pursuant to Th ird Circuit LAR 34.1(a) August 1, 2022 Before: KRAUSE, BIBAS and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 11, 2022)

___________

OPINION *

___________

* This disposition is not an op inion of the full Court and pu rsuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 PER CURIAM Pro se appellant Alvin Ge orge White, Jr., appeals from the Magistrate Judge’s order granting the defendants’ motion to di smiss and for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we will vacate the Ma gistrate Judge’s judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings.
I. In October 2020, Alvin George White, who is incarcerated at SCI-Mercer in Pennsylvania, filed a pro se co mplaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that prison officials violated his rights under the Ei ghth Amendment by faili ng to implement the Department of Corrections’ policies regard ing the COVID-19 pandem ic. He named as defendants: John E. Wetzel, the former Pennsylvania Secretary of Corrections; Melinda Adams, the Superintendent of SCI-Mercer; and Marcia Combine, the Unit Manager of White’s cell block. In the complaint, which he later amended, White alleged that in April 2020, when the prison implemented the st ate-wide lock down and other safety protocols, he was housed on G-Block, an open do rmitory-style unit with 125 in mates. According to White, the defendants “knew the threat that this open block presen ted, [more] than any other block in the institution,” but ignored Center for Disease Co ntrol (CDC) guidelines for social distancing. Compl. 5, ECF No. 7. White stated that the defendants took some precautions—such as downsizi ng his block to sixty inma tes—but they ignored the problem posed by the open housing in G-Block even though “there was available space3 that would [have] allowed the ch anges for our safety.” Id. at 6. In addition, according to White, during May, June, and July of 2020, “o fficials began to interchange large numbers of inmates from other blocks a nd jails to [G-Block].” Id. White alleged that each of the thre e defendants knew how dangerous the open housing was but ignored the danger. He stated that Secretary Wetzel visited G-Block in June or July and spoke with the inmates ab out their concerns, but nonetheless proceeded to bring in inmates from different blocks and jails. White further alleged that he personally spoke with Superintendent Adams during one of her visits to G-Block, at which time she “admitted that so mething needed to be done[] but did not have a plan of action.” Id. at 7. Unit Manager Combine similarly “spoke with great concern of the danger [the prisoners faced] because of this open unit an[d] the four man living conditions.” Id. According to White, she was “angry and admitted the big mistake the higher officials made by interchanging th e large number of inmates.” Id. White alleged that, as a result of the defendants’ failure to take sufficient precautions, there was an outbreak on G-Bloc k in August 2020—the sole block in the prison to suffer an outbreak. On August 26 , 2020, White began to experience heart problems and shortness of breath and was admitted to the hospital, where he tested positive for COVID-19. White alleged that he nearly died in the hos pital, and that the extent of the damage to his heart is still un known. He asserted that the defendants could have prevented the outbreak in the G-Block but ignored the threat. In fact, he asserts, they ultimately took pr eventative measures—but not until after he had become seriously4 ill. White sought $3.5 million in damages. The parties c onsented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. The defendants moved to dismiss the amen ded complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing, inter a lia, that White failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim because his allegations did no t support a plausible inference that they acted with deliberate indifference toward a serious medical need. 1 The Magistrate Judge granted the motion over White’s objections and dismissed the amended complaint. 2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1291. Our sta ndard of review is plenary. Chavarriaga v. N.J. Dep’t of Corr., 806 F.3d 210, 21 8 (3d Cir. 2015). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp . v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544, 570 (2007)). To state an Eighth Amendm ent claim, a plaintiff must allege that he was incarcerated under conditions im posing a substantial risk of serious harm, and that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to that risk. Farmer v. Bre nnan, 511 U.S. 825, 834

1 The defendants also moved to dismiss the complaint on th e ground that White had not exhausted his administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Magistrate Judge construed this portion of the defendan ts’ motion as a motion for summary judgment and denied relief, conc luding that White had presented enough evidence of his efforts to e xhaust to withstand summary judgment. The defendants do not challenge this ruling.

2 White sought reconsideration of the Magi strate Judge’s order, but she denied the request.5 (1994). “An official is deliberately indiffere nt if he ‘knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate hea lth or safety.’” Porter v. Pa. Dep’t of Co rr., 974 F.3d 431, 441 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). Upon review, we conclude that White se t forth sufficient f acts to survive the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants conceded that COVID-19 poses a serious risk to the inmate population. Br. 16, ECF No. 16. White alleged that Secretary Wetzel ignored DOC protocols by maintaining open- dormitory housing and four-man cells, and by “interchanging” inmates from different bloc ks and jails. White further alleged that there was space in other parts of the prison to relocate inmates. He also alleged that Superintendent Adams and Ma nager Combine acknowledged to him that the conditions in G-Block were dangerous but did nothi ng to improve them. Accepting White’s allegations as true, as we must, see Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 212 (3d Cir. 2013), we cannot say that these fact s do not raise an inference of deliberate indifference to a conced edly serious risk. The Magistrate Judge conclude d that White failed to stat e a claim in light of the preventative measures the Department of Corr ections has generally taken to mitigate risk, as well as the CDC’s guidance for prisons. But White alleged that the defendant prison officials did not even try to comply with DOC and CD C guidance. We express no opinion on whether While will ultimately prevail on his clai m. The defendants may be able to provide facts showin g that they cannot be liable because they responded reasonably to the risk because, perhaps, diffe rent housing arrangements were not feasible,6 see Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844, for example. However, dismissa l was not appropriate at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Accordingly, we will vacate the Magist rate Judge’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.