UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IAN SEAN WOOD, :

:

Plaintiff : No. 4:CV-04-1693

:

vs. : (Complaint Filed 08/02/04)

:

: (Judge Muir)

DR. ROMEO, et al., :

:

Defendants :

ORDER

January 20, 2006

BACKGROUND

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Plaintiff, Ian Sean Wood, is an inmate currently

confined in the State Correctional Institution, Coal-Township,

Pennsylvania. He complains of incidents which occurred at his

former place of confinement, the Rockview State Correctional

Institution, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Rockview”).

Specifically, he alleges that after being attacked by another

inmate on December 3, 2002, defendants were deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs to his face and eye, in

violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. (Doc. No. 1,

complaint). Named as defendants in the complaint are Dr. Joseph

Romeo, Dr. John J. Schietroma, and the SCI-Rockview Medical

Case 4:04-cv-01693-MM-DB Document 69 Filed 01/20/06 Page 1 of 9
1. Plaintiff was twice granted enlargements of time within

which to file a brief in opposition to defendant's motion for

judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. Nos. 53, 64). 

2

Administration. By Order dated September 2, 2005, the motion to

dismiss defendant, Dr. Schietroma was granted and summary

judgment was entered in favor of defendant, Dr. Romeo. (Doc.

No. 67). Presently before the court is a motion for judgment on

the pleadings, filed on behalf of the remaining defendant, SCIRockview Medical Administration. (Doc. No. 47). Although the

time for the filing of plaintiff’s opposing brief has elapsed,

he has neither filed an opposing brief, nor has he requested an

extension of time within which to do so.1 Plaintiff therefore

is deemed not to oppose the motion. It is noted, however, that

defendant's motion is well-taken, and for the reasons set forth

below, will be granted. 

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Standard

Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

as follows:

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. After the

pleadings are closed but within such time as not to

delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the

pleadings. If, on a motion for judgment on the

pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented

to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be

Case 4:04-cv-01693-MM-DB Document 69 Filed 01/20/06 Page 2 of 9
3

treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as

provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given

reasonable opportunity to present all material made

pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A Rule 12(c) motion may not be granted

“unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of

fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law, . . . view[ing] the facts presented in the

pleadings and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light

most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Hayes vs. Community Gen.

Osteopathic Hosp., 940 F.2d 54, 56 (3d Cir. 1991)(quoting

Society Hill Civic Ass’n vs. Harris, 632 F.2d 1045, 1054 (3d

Cir. 1980)(quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,

Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1386, at 690 (1969))). A court

may not dismiss a complaint on the pleadings unless no set of

facts could be adduced to support the plaintiff’s claim for

relief. Conley vs. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).

Factual Allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint

On the morning of December 3, 2002, plaintiff was struck in

the left eye with a “make shift weapon consisting of a lock in

sock or metal of some kind”, when he was attacked by another

inmate. (Doc. No 1, p. 2, ¶ 2). He was immediately taken to the

Case 4:04-cv-01693-MM-DB Document 69 Filed 01/20/06 Page 3 of 9
4

SCI-Rockview Medical Department. Id. As a result of the

severity of the injury to his face, Wood was transported by

prison security to a medical facility in State College,

Pennsylvania, for treatment, where he was told that he needed

immediate surgery for his eye. (Doc. No. 1, p. 2, ¶ 3).

Plaintiff was then taken to Pinnacle Hospital, Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania, where his surgery was performed by Dr. Schietroma.

(Doc. No. 1, p. 2A, ¶ 4). 

Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Dr. Schietroma's

“apparent deliberate indifference to [his] quality of life, the

plaintiff's bottom muscle of his left eye was left now in his

nose cavity and the plaintiff now suffers difficulty breathing”

as well as “numbness from the crown of his head to the bottom of

his left side of upper lip and also has lost some if not all

feeling in his teeth and gums on said such side.” Id. at ¶ 6.

He also suffers the additional problems of “having double

vision, accompanied with severe headaches and occasional nose

bleeding.” Id. at ¶ 7. 

Wood states that “although he continues to complain to

defendant, Dr. Romeo, SCI-Rockview Medical Department, he has

been repeatedly subjected to suffer cruel and unusual medical

Case 4:04-cv-01693-MM-DB Document 69 Filed 01/20/06 Page 4 of 9
5

and psychological abuse at the hands of defendant Dr. John J.

Schietroma.” Id. at ¶ 8. Plaintiff believes that he “has no

means of seeking or obtaining alternative medical care and

treatment except what defendants of the SCI-Rockview medical

department prescribes and under contractual agreement they are

willing or, unwilling afforded.” Id. at ¶ 9. 

On August 2, 2004, Wood filed the instant action in which

he seeks “an injunction mandating defendant, Dr. Romeo, SCIRockview, to send plaintiff to another medical provider to

correct the medical abuse caused by defendant Schietroma”, as

well as compensatory and punitive damages from each defendant.

(Doc. No. 1, p. 3, ¶ 2).

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

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 this case, the only remaining defendant is SCI-Rockview

Medical Administration. This agency, however, is not a "person"

Case 4:04-cv-01693-MM-DB Document 69 Filed 01/20/06 Page 5 of 9
6

which is amenable to suit within the meaning of § 1983. See

e.g. Mitchell vs. Chester County Farms Prison, 426 F.Supp. 271

274 (E.D. Pa 1976) (An agency of a county, such as a county

prison, is not a person subject to suit under § 1983); Brooks

vs. Pembroke City Jail, 722 F.Supp. 1294, 1301 (E.D. N.C.

1989)(City Jail was not "person" amenable to suit under § 1983).

Thus, by naming only the Medical Administration, Wood has failed

to allege that a person acting under color of state law violated

his constitutional rights, and has, therefore, failed to set

forth a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Burgess

vs. SCI-Medical Facility, Civ. No. 96-0636, slip. op. at p. 2

(M.D. Pa. May 9, 1996)(Vanaskie, J.). 

Moreover, the gist of plaintiff's complaint is that he did

not receive appropriate medical treatment. 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

Case 4:04-cv-01693-MM-DB Document 69 Filed 01/20/06 Page 6 of 9
7

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). 

“Allegations of medical malpractice are not sufficient to

establish a Constitutional violation.” Spruill vs. Gillis, 372

F.3d 218, 235. “[A]s long as a physician exercises professional

judgment his behavior will not violate a prisoner’s

constitutional rights.” Brown vs. Borough of Chambersburg, 903

F.2d 274, 278 (3d Cir. 1990). In sum, negligence, unsuccessful

medical treatment, or medical malpractice do not give rise to a

§ 1983 cause of action, and an inmate’s disagreement with

medical treatment is insufficient to establish deliberate

indifference. See Durmer vs. O’Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 69 (3d

Cir. 1993).

Additionally, if there is a dispute over the adequacy of the

received treatment, courts have consistently been reluctant to

second guess the medical judgment of the attending physician.

Case 4:04-cv-01693-MM-DB Document 69 Filed 01/20/06 Page 7 of 9
8

Little vs. Lycoming County, 912 F. Supp. 809, 815 (M.D. Pa.),

aff'd, 101 F.3d 691 (3d Cir. 1996). The key question is whether

the defendant has provided the plaintiff with some type of

treatment, regardless of whether it is what the plaintiff

desires. Farmer vs. Carlson, 685 F. Supp. at 1339. 

The allegations contained in the complaint reveal that after

the assault, plaintiff was immediately taken to the SCI-Rockview

Medical Department; transferred to an outside medical facility

in State College, Pennsylvania; treated by an outside physician

who recommended immediate surgery, which he then received.

(Doc. No. 1, pp. 2, 2A, ¶¶ 2, 3, 5). Plaintiff also admits to

having been examined at three medical facilities outside of the

prison, one of which was at the office of an eye specialist.

Id. at p. 2A, ¶ 4. Thus, the allegations contained within the

complaint establish meaningful efforts by the defendants to

provide plaintiff with necessary medical care, and an attendant

mental state that falls woefully short of deliberate

indifference. Indeed, plaintiff's allegations of the scope and

quality of medical attention that the defendants provided

precludes a finding of deliberate indifference on behalf of the

SCI-Rockview Medical Administration. 

Case 4:04-cv-01693-MM-DB Document 69 Filed 01/20/06 Page 8 of 9
2. Plaintiff filed a request for amendment of his civil

action in which he seeks to add new defendants and claims.

(Doc. No. 61). Plaintiff's claims, however, occurred

subsequent to the filing of the instant action and in no way

relate back to his original complaint or the original

defendants. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c). Thus, plaintiff’s

“amendment” constitutes a new cause of action involving

persons who are strangers to the existing action. Such

“amendment” would be more appropriately filed as a new action. 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The motion for judgment on the pleadings,

filed on behalf of the SCI-Rockview Medical

Administration, (Doc. No. 47) is GRANTED. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter

judgment in favor of the SCI-Rockview Medical

Administration and against the plaintiff. 

3. Plaintiff's motion to amend his civil action

(Doc. No. 61) is denied.2

4. Defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's

request to amend his civil action (Doc. No.

62) is DISMISSED as moot. 

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this

case. 

6. Any appeal taken from this order will be

deemed frivolous, without probable cause, and

not taken in good faith.

s/Malcolm Muir 

MUIR

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-01693-MM-DB Document 69 Filed 01/20/06 Page 9 of 9