1. Plaintiff was paroled on July 24, 2005 and currently

resides at 530 S. TV McCoo Boulevard, Apt. Q, Eufaula,

Alabama. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ARTHUR JAMES WOODLEY, :

:

Plaintiff : No. 4:CV-05-1844

:

vs. : (Complaint Filed 09/13/05)

:

: (Judge Muir)

ROCKVIEW STATE INSTITUTION, :

et al., :

:

Defendants :

ORDER

December 20, 2005

Background

Plaintiff, Arthur James Woodley, an inmate formerly confined

in the Rockview State Correctional Institution, Bellefonte

(“SCI-Rockview”), Pennsylvania, filed this pro se civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The named defendants are

the Rockview State Correctional Institution; Franklin J. Tennis,

SCI-Rockview Superintendent; Richard Eller, Health Care

Administrator; Jeffrey Rackovan, Grievance Coordinator; Sharon

M. Burks, Chief Grievance Officer; Margaret Miller, Nurse

Case 4:05-cv-01844-MM-DB Document 4 Filed 12/20/05 Page 1 of 9
2. Section 1915(e)(2) provides:

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion

thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss

the case at any time if the court determines that (A) the

allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or

appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state

a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief. 

2

supervisor, John Doe, third shift officer; Deputy Gaerfner and

John Symons. Along with his complaint, plaintiff submitted an

application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis under

28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (the "Act"),

Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (April 26, 1996) imposed new

obligations on prisoners who file suit in federal court and wish

to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, e.g., the

full filing fee ultimately must be paid (at least in a nonhabeas suit). Also, a new section was added which relates to

screening complaints in prisoner actions.2

The complaint will now be reviewed pursuant to the screening

provisions of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the

instant complaint will be dismissed, without prejudice, as

legally frivolous pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

When considering a complaint accompanied by a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis, a district court may determine that

Case 4:05-cv-01844-MM-DB Document 4 Filed 12/20/05 Page 2 of 9
3. Indisputably meritless legal theories are those "in which

it is either readily apparent that the plaintiff's complaint

lacks an arguable basis in law or that the defendants are

clearly entitled to immunity from suit." Roman vs. Jeffes,

904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990) (quoting Sultenfuss vs. Snow,

894 F.2d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir. 1990)). Clearly baseless

factual contentions describe scenarios "clearly removed from

reality." Id.

3

process should not be issued if the complaint is malicious,

presents an indisputably meritless legal theory, or is

predicated on clearly baseless factual contentions. Neitzke vs.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989); Wilson vs. Rackmill, 878

F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989).3 "The frivolousness determination

is a discretionary one," and trial courts "are in the best

position" to determine when an indigent litigant's complaint is

appropriate for summary dismissal. Denton vs. Hernandez, 504

U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

The plaintiff alleges that on September 7, 2003, he was

attempting to climb into his bed “by way of using a chair and

heater within his room” when his right foot slipped off the

heater. (Doc. No. 1, complaint). Plaintiff claims that he then

fell off the heater, hitting his back on the heater, as his

right foot went beneath the bed striking his leg. Id. He

Case 4:05-cv-01844-MM-DB Document 4 Filed 12/20/05 Page 3 of 9
4

states that the third shift officer responded to the incident.

Id. 

Woodley claims that from September 8, 2003 through May 2,

2005, he “visited medical to explain [his] injuries” and that

the medical staff stated that “tylenol and advil is all that

could be given to [plaintiff] and that [he] will always have

back problems.” Id. He alleges that he was also told that he

was “wasting [his] time and money [because] the dent in [his]

leg will be there yet the outer surface will heal.” Id. 

Finally, plaintiff states that on September 9, 2003, x-rays

were taken of plaintiff, which revealed that there were no

broken bones in his back and that the pulled ligaments in his

back were the cause of his pain. Id.

 Plaintiff files the instant complaint, seeking injunctive

and declaratory relief that defendants “actions and inactions”

violated plaintiff's constitutional rights, as well as

compensatory and punitive damages. Id. 

Discussion

In order to prevail on a claim made under § 1983, the

plaintiff must satisfy two criteria: (1) that some person has

deprived him or her of a federal right, and (2) that the person

Case 4:05-cv-01844-MM-DB Document 4 Filed 12/20/05 Page 4 of 9
5

who caused the deprivation acted under color of state or

territorial law. West vs. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Flagg

Bros., Inc. vs. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155 (1978).

In the context of medical care, the relevant inquiry is

whether defendants were: (1) deliberately indifferent (the

subjective element) to (2) plaintiff's serious medical needs

(the objective element). Monmouth County Correctional

Institution Inmates vs. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir.

1987); West vs. Keve, 571 F.2d 158, 161 (3d Cir. 1979). Because

only flagrantly egregious acts or omissions can violate this

standard, mere medical malpractice can not result in an Eighth

Amendment violation, nor can disagreements over a prison

physician's medical judgment. White vs. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103,

108-10 (3d Cir. 1990). Furthermore, a complaint that a

physician or a medical department "has been negligent in

diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a

valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth

Amendment...." Estelle vs. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).

Assuming without deciding, that plaintiff’s injury is

serious in the constitutional sense, the allegations in the

complaint illustrate clearly that plaintiff has received medical

Case 4:05-cv-01844-MM-DB Document 4 Filed 12/20/05 Page 5 of 9
6

attention. The allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint amount

to nothing more than plaintiff's subjective disagreement with

the treatment decisions and medical judgment of the medical

staff at the prison. At most, the allegations in the complaint

only rise to the level of mere negligence. As simple negligence

can not serve as a predicate to liability under § 1983, Hudson

vs. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984), plaintiff's civil rights

complaint fails to articulate an arguable claim under § 1983.

See White, 897 F.2d at 108-110. 

Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff names Superintendent

Tennis and Health Care Administrator Eller as defendants, claims

brought under § 1983 cannot be premised on a theory of

respondeat superior. Rode vs. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195,

1207 (3d Cir. 1988). Rather, each named defendant must be

shown, via the complaint's allegations, to have been personally

involved in the events or occurrences which underlie a claim.

See Rizzo vs. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); Hampton vs. Holmesburg

Prison Officials, 546 F.2d 1077 (3d Cir. 1976). As explained in

Rode:

A defendant in a civil rights action must have personal

involvement in the alleged wrongs. . . . [P]ersonal

involvement can be shown through allegations of

Case 4:05-cv-01844-MM-DB Document 4 Filed 12/20/05 Page 6 of 9
7

personal direction or of actual knowledge and

acquiescence. Allegations of participation or actual

knowledge and acquiescence, however, must be made with

appropriate particularity.

Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207.

Based on a review of plaintiff’s complaint, it is apparent

that he is relying solely upon a theory of respondeat superior

as to these defendants. Plaintiff fails to assert that these

defendant had any personal involvement in actions which resulted

in a violation of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, these

defendants are entitled to dismissal.

Finally, the court notes that the adjudicatory power of a

federal court depends upon "the continuing existence of a live

and acute controversy." Steffel vs. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459

(1974) (emphasis in original). "The rule in federal cases is

that an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of

review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed." Id. at

n.10 (citations omitted). "Past exposure to illegal conduct is

insufficient to sustain a present case or controversy regarding

injunctive relief if unaccompanied by continuing, present

adverse effects." Rosenberg vs. Meese, 622 F. Supp. 1451, 1462

Case 4:05-cv-01844-MM-DB Document 4 Filed 12/20/05 Page 7 of 9
8

(S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citing O'Shea vs. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-

96 (1974)).

Furthermore, "[a]bsent class certification, an inmate's

claim for injunctive and declaratory relief in a section 1983

action fails to present a case or controversy once the inmate

has been transferred." Wahl vs. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1173

(11th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted); see also Carter vs.

Thompson, 808 F. Supp. 1548, 1555 (M.D. Fla. 1992). The instant

plaintiff is no longer confined at SCI-Rockview, and there is no

reasonable probability that he will be returned to that

correctional facility in the foreseeable future. Consequently,

since plaintiff is not suffering any apparent continuing adverse

effects as a result of his prior confinement at SCI-Rockview,

his requests for injunctive and declaratory relief are moot

under the standards set forth in Rosenberg and Wahl.

Thus, under the circumstances, the court is confident that

service of process is not only unwarranted, but would waste the

judicial resources that § 1915 is designed to preserve. See

Roman vs. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 195 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1990).

Case 4:05-cv-01844-MM-DB Document 4 Filed 12/20/05 Page 8 of 9
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No.

2) is construed as a motion to proceed without

full prepayment of fees and costs and the motion

is GRANTED.

2. The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice

as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

3. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel

(Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED as moot. 

4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

 s/Malcolm Muir 

Muir

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01844-MM-DB Document 4 Filed 12/20/05 Page 9 of 9