2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-24-2011

Terry Kuehner v. Secretary PA Dept Corr

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-4504

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Terry Kuehner v. Secretary PA Dept Corr" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1208.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1208
GLD-186 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-4504

___________

TERRY KUEHNER, 

Appellant

v.

*SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

ROBERT TRETINIK; PHYSICIAN ASST. MYER; BRIAN COLEMAN, Warden;

DR. HERBIK; DR. SAAVEDRA

*(Pursuant to Rule 43(c), Fed. R. App. P.)

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Civil No. 2:08-cv-01319)

District Judge: Honorable David Stewart Cercone 

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or

Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 12, 2011

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Filed: May 24, 2011 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM
2

Terry Kuehner, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Mercer in 

Pennsylvania, appeals pro se from the District Court’s decision dismissing his amended 

complaint against Appellees Dr. Michael Herbik and physician’s assistant (“P.A.”) Chris 

Meyer,1and entering summary judgment in favor of Appellee Dr. Peter Saavedra. For 

the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm.

I.

In October 2008, Kuehner, then incarcerated at Pennsylvania’s State Correctional 

Institution at Fayette (“SCI-Fayette”), commenced this civil rights action in the District 

Court by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint, brought 

against then-Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Jeffrey Beard, 

SCI-Fayette Superintendent Brian Coleman, Corrections Health Care Administrator 

Robert Tretinik, P.A. Meyer, Dr. Herbik, and “Psy. Dr. Cerrelico,” alleged that the 

defendants had violated Kuehner’s constitutional rights by denying him medical 

treatment while at SCI-Fayette. Kuehner later amended the case caption, replacing “Psy. 

Dr. Cerrelico” with Dr. Saavedra.

In March 2009, Beard, Coleman, and Tretinik (hereinafter collectively referred to 

as the “Commonwealth Defendants”) jointly moved to dismiss the claims against them 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The following month, P.A. Meyer and Dr. Herbik 

jointly moved to dismiss and, in the alternative, sought a more definite statement as to the 

 

1

P.A. Meyer’s last name is spelled “Myer” in Kuehner’s complaint and on the District 

Court and appellate dockets. In this opinion, however, we will use the spelling provided 

by Meyer’s appellate counsel.
3

claims against them. In July 2009, Dr. Saavedra joined in those motions.

In November 2009, the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued 

a report recommending that the District Court grant both the Commonwealth Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss and the remaining defendants’ motion for a more definite statement. In 

doing so, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Kuehner’s “allegations, construed 

liberally, do not support a finding that any of the Commonwealth Defendants had any 

knowledge of, or personal involvement in, the claims alleged in the Complaint,” 

(Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation of Nov. 25, 2009, at 6), and that 

amendment of those allegations would be futile. On January 6, 2010, the District Court 

adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report, dismissed the claims against the Commonwealth 

Defendants, and granted the remaining defendants’ motion for a more definite statement.

Kuehner subsequently filed a document that was construed as his amended 

complaint. (See Dist. Ct. docket no. 73-1). That filing alleged that, in August 2007, a 

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas judge ordered that he be sent to Norristown State 

Hospital (“Norristown Hospital”) for “competency restoration.” During Kuehner’s stay 

at Norristown Hospital, he was prescribed medications for his mental health condition 

and a pinched nerve in his back. Kuehner claimed that, upon returning to SCI-Fayette in 

February 2008, he was taken off those medications for four days, at which time Dr. 

Saavedra prescribed a different medication, which made Kuehner feel worse. Dr. 

Saavedra allegedly did not wean Kuehner off the medications he had taken at Norristown 

Hospital or conduct blood testing. About two weeks after Kuehner returned to SCI-
4

Fayette, P.A. Meyer allegedly refused to treat him when he did not pay the five dollar copay fee. During an appointment several months later, Dr. Herbik and Administrator 

Tretinik allegedly did not examine the pinched nerve in Kuehner’s back or prescribe any 

pain medication for that condition. According to Kuehner, Secretary Beard and Warden 

Coleman were made aware of these incidents through prison grievances he had filed. 

After Kuehner filed his amended complaint, P.A. Meyer and Dr. Herbik jointly 

moved to dismiss, and Dr. Saavedra moved for summary judgment. In October 2010, the 

Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the District Court grant both 

motions. In doing so, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Kuehner had procedurally 

defaulted his claims against P.A. Meyer and Dr. Herbik by failing to properly exhaust his 

administrative remedies. The Magistrate Judge further concluded that “there is no record 

evidence that suggests that [Dr. Saavedra] knew that [Kuehner] faced a substantial risk of 

serious harm and disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it 

or that he had any reason to know that [Kuehner] faced any substantial harm.” 

(Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation of Oct. 12, 2010, at 19.) On November 

17, 2010, the District Court entered an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s report, 

granting P.A. Meyer’s and Dr. Herbik’s joint motion to dismiss, and granting summary 

judgment in favor of Dr. Saavedra. Kuehner now appeals from this most recent order. 

II.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise 

plenary review over a district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss or a motion for 
5

summary judgment. Gallo v. City of Phila., 161 F.3d 217, 221 (3d Cir. 1998).

Having reviewed the District Court record, and for substantially the reasons given 

by the Magistrate Judge in her October 12, 2010 report, we agree with the District 

Court’s disposition of the claims against P.A. Meyer and Drs. Herbik and Saavedra. To 

the extent this appeal also challenges the dismissal of Kuehner’s claims against the 

Commonwealth Defendants, we conclude that such a challenge lacks merit.2 Because 

this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District 

Court’s November 17, 2010 judgment.3 See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. 

Kuehner’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

 

2 As the Magistrate Judge noted in her October 12, 2010 report, Kuehner procedurally 

defaulted his claim against Administrator Tretinik. As for Secretary Beard and Warden 

Coleman, even if Kuehner were permitted to amend his claims against them so as to 

allege their personal involvement in the incidents at issue here, those claims would still 

fail. Specifically, his claims relating to the incidents involving P.A. Meyer, Dr. Herbik, 

and Administrator Tretinik would, as noted above, be procedurally defaulted, and his 

claims relating to Dr. Saavedra’s treatment would lack merit. See Durmer v. O’Carroll, 

991 F.2d 64, 69 (3d Cir. 1993) (stating that prison officials who are not physicians cannot 

“be considered deliberately indifferent [under the Eighth Amendment] simply because 

they failed to respond directly to the medical complaints of a prisoner who was already 

being treated by the prison doctor.”).

3 Kuehner appears to allege that prison officials have retaliated against him for bringing 

this lawsuit. To the extent he wishes to pursue this claim, he would need to file a new 

complaint in the District Court. We express no opinion on the merits of such a 

complaint.