2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-25-2010 

# F lib e r Franco -C alz a d a v

. U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-4409

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Fl ibe r F r anc o -C al za d a v

. U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1631. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1631BL D- 1 2 8 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 4409 F L I BE R F RA NC O- CA L Z ADA, A ppel l ant

v. U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ; M O S H A N N O N V A L L E Y C O R R E C T IO N A L C E N T E R ;

M I CH AE L A. Z E NK; F E DE RA L BU RE AU OF P RI S ONS ; DR . AGR A; CORNEL L COM P ANI ES , I NC.

____________________________________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- cv- 00245) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 February19, 2010 B efore: M cK E E , R E N D E L L and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 25, 2010 )

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C UR I AM Fl i berFr anco- C al zada , a fe der al i nm at e, appea l s fr om the or derof the U ni t ed2

S tate s D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia d ism iss in g su a sp o n te h is c i v i l r i g h t s c o m p l a i n tf

o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m u n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 A ( b ) ( 1 ) - ( 2 ) . We w il l dism iss th e a p p ea l pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). A tal l r el evantt i m es , Fr anco- C al zada w as i ncar cer at ed atthe M os hannon V al l ey C o rre c tio n a l C e n ter (“ M o sh a n n o n ” ) in P h ill ip sb u rg , P e n n sy lv a n ia, a p riv a te f a c ili ty o p era ted b ythe C o rne ll C o m p an yu n d er c o n tr ac t t o the B u rea u o f P ri so n s (“B O P ”). F ra n c o -C a lza d a ’s C o m p lain t ra ise s tw o c laim s, b o th o f w h ich a rise o u t o f

h is s lip and fa l l fr om a l adder( att ache d t o hi s t op bunk) on J anuary2, 2009, i n w hi ch he f r actur ed tw o fi nger s . Fi r s t , he al l eges thatthe l adderatt ache d t o hi s bunk bed i s t oo s m al l foran a d u l ta n d th a tth e f

a u l ty l a d d e rc a u s e d h i s f a l l a n d r e s u l t i n g i n

j u ry t o h i s f

i n g e r s . H e s a ys that, on i nfo rm at i on and beli ef, atl easttw o o ther i nm at es have exp eri enced fal l s becau se of the l adderpr obl em. H e bl ames the def endant s forfai l i ng t o i ns pectthe l adder s and r e c t i f yth e p r o b l e m. S e c o n d , F ra n c o -C a lza d a c laim s th a t th e m e d ica l trea tm e n t h e re c e iv e d f o r h is br oken fi nger s w as del ay ed unnec es s ar i l yi n del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o hi s s er i ous m edi cal needs . H e al l eges thatthe def endant s fai l ed t o s end hi m t o the l ocal emer gencyr oom for i m m edi at e tr eatm entof hi s br oken fi nger s on the ni ghtof the ac ci dent , theyt ook no x- r ay u n t i l th e f

o l l o wi n g M o n d a y , a n d th e yd e l a y e d h i s s u r g e ry( t o f i x th e f r a c tu r e s ) f

o rtwo w e e k s. F ra n c o -C a lza d a a lso c laim s th a t af ter in iti a llyp ro v id in g h im w ith p a in m edi cat i on, the pr i s on i s m aki ng hi m pur chas e i tthr ough the comm i s s ary . H e as s ert s t hat3

he s uffe r s fr om perm anents t i ffne s s and pai n i n hi s fi nger s . H e att ache d document at i on of h i s pri son g ri evan ces and the B O P ’s res po nses. A tthe i ni t i al s cr eeni ng, the M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended thatthe C om pl ai ntbe d ism iss e d su a sp o n te f

o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim a s to a ll d e f e n d a n ts. T h e M a g istra te J udge fi r s tnot ed thata B i vens act i on i s avai l abl e foract i ons agai ns tcorr ect i ons per s onnel f o r th e ir d e lib e ra te in d if

f e re n c e to a n in m a te’ s s e rio u s m e d ica l n e e d s u n d e r th e E ig h th A m endment . ( See R eportat2. ) H e ul t i m at el yfound, how ever , thatFr anco- C al zada had no B i vens cl ai m beca us e the fa ctual al l egat i on of a thi r t een- daydel ayi n obt ai ni ng s ur gery , al one, w as “i nadequa t e t o al l ege de l i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence on the partof any defe ndant . ” ( I d. at3. ) N ext , tr eat i ng the s l i p and fa l l al l egat i ons as a B i vens cl ai m , the M a g istra te J u d g e f

o u n d th a t F ra n c o -C a lza d a “ a g a in f a ils to a lleg e a n yf

a c ts th a t w o u ld perm i tan i nfer ence of del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence . ” ( I d. at4- 5. ) ( not i ng thatFr anco- C al zada fai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m underthe more l eni ents i m pl e negl i gence s t andar d under P e n n s y lv a n ia la w .) B eca us e both of Fr anco- C al zada ’ s cl ai m s l acke d m er i t , the M agi s tr at e J udge found i tun necessaryt o an al y ze t he li abil i tyof indi vidual defe nd ants C ornel l C om pan i es, M o s h a n n o n , W a r d e n Ze n k , a n d Do c t o rAg r a . He n o t e d , h o we v e r , th a tth e S u p r e me C o u rt, i n C o rre c tio n a l S e rv . C o rp . v . M a les k o , 5 3 4 U .S . 6 1 , 7 1 -7 2 , 7 4 (2 0 0 1 ), d e c lin e d to ext end the B i vens r emedyt o cl ai m s agai ns tpr i vat e corpor at i ons oper at i ng underfede r al co n tr ac ts. A ck n o w ledg ing that M alesk o “lef t op en an o b v iou s q u esti o n , w h ethe r aW e nee d notr eac h t he i s s ue w hetherM al es ka bar s B i vens cl ai m s agai ns tthe 1 in d iv id u a l d e f

e n d a n ts in th is c a se b e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e a p p e a l h a s n o a rg u a b le m e rit in a n ye v e n t. 4 B iv e n s a c tio n c a n b e a lleg e d a g a in st a p riv a te in d iv id u a l,” th e M a g istra te J u d g e lo o k e d to deci s i ons of the C our t s of A ppeal s thathave he l d thatno s uch ac t i ons s houl d be i m pl i ed agai ns tpr i vat e i ndi vi dual act or s . ( I d. at6. ) T he M agi s tr at e J udge found that“[i ] n the abs ence of per s uas i ve author i tyt o t he contr ary , even a compl ai ntadequa t el yal l egi ng a claim ag ains t anyind ividu al de fe n d an t sho u ld b e d ism issed . ” (Id.) T h e D istri ct C o u rt 1 overrul ed Fr anco- C al zada ’ s obj ect i ons , adopt ed the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s R eport , and d ism iss e d th e C o m p lain t f o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim . F ra n c o -C a lza d a f iled th is tim e ly a p p e a l.W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. S ee D euts ch v . U nit ed S t at es, 67 F. 3d 1080, 1083 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . O urr evi ew i s pl enary . See Tours cherv. M cC ul l ough, 184 F. 3d 236, 240 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . Fr anco- C al zada has been gr ant ed l eave t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s on appea l . B eca us e hi s appea l fr om the di s m i s s al of C om pl ai ntl acks ar guabl e mer i t , w e w i l l di s m i s s i tpur s uantt o § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . See N eit zk e v . W il li am s, 4 9 0 U . S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (19 8 9 ). In o rde r t o su rviv e d ism issal, a c o m p lai n t m u st co n tai n su ff ici en t fac tual m att er, acc ept ed as true, t o “s t at e a c l ai m t o r el i ef thati s pl aus i bl e on i t s fac e. ” B el l A t l . C orp. v. T w om bl y , 550 U . S. 544, 570 ( 2007) . T he pl aus i bi l i tys t andar d “as ks form or e than a sh e e r p o ss ib ili tyth a t a d e f e n d a n t h a s a c ted u n law f u lly .” S e e A sh c ro f

t v . Iq b a l, 12 9 S . C t.5

1937, 1949 ( 2009) . W el l - pl eade d fac tual cont enti s acc ept ed as true forpurpos es of det erm i ni ng w hetherthe compl ai nts t at es a pl aus i bl e cl ai m forr el i ef. I d. at1950. T he as s um pt i on of truth does notappl y , how ever , t o l egal concl us i ons couche d as fac tual al l egat i ons ort o “[t ] hr eadba r e r eci t al s of the el ement s of a c aus e of a ct i on, s uppor t ed by m er e conc l us orys t at ement s . ” I d. at1949. “A cl ai m has fac i al pl aus i bi l i tyw hen the pl ai nt i ff pl eads fac tual cont entthatal l ow s the courtt o dr aw the r eas onabl e i nfer ence t hat the def endanti s l i abl e forthe mi s conductal l eged. ” I d. A ft err evi ew i ng the D i s tr i ctC our tpl eadi ngs and not i ce of appea l , w e conc l ude as a m a tter o f

law th a t F ra n c o -C a lza d a ’s C o m p lain t w a s c o rre c tlyd ism iss e d f o r f a ilu re to s t at e a c l ai m . T her e i s nothi ng i n t he C om pl ai nt ’ s s peci fi c al l egat i ons fr om w hi ch w e ca n p laus iblyinf

er tha t th e d ef

en d an ts w ere d eli b era tel yind iffe ren t t o F ran co -C alza d a’s s er i ous m edi cal needs ort o pr i s on condi t i ons pert ai ni ng t o the us e of a n al l egedl yuns afe l adderi n hi s cel l . T he pr ot ect i ons aff or ded pr i s oner s bythe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endmentar e nottr i gger ed bythe mer e negl i gence of pr i s on offi ci al s . See D a n iels v . W ill iam s, 4 7 4 U .S . 3 2 7 , 3 3 0 -3 1 (1 9 8 6 ). L ik e w ise , E ig h th A m e n d m e n t li a b ili ty r equi r es “more than or di naryl ack of due ca r e forthe pr i s oner ’ s i nt er es t s ors afe ty . ” W h itl e yv . A lb e rs, 4 7 5 U .S . 3 1 2 , 3 1 9 (1 9 8 6 ). R e g a rd in g m e d ica l m istre a tm e n t cla im s in part i cul ar , “[i ] ti s w el l - s ett l ed thatcl ai m s of negl i gence orm edi cal m al pr act i ce, w i thout s om e more cul pabl e s t at e of mi nd, do notcons t i tut e ‘ del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence . ’ ” R ous e v. Pl ant i er , 182 F. 3d 192, 197 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ; s ee a l s o W hi t e v. N apol eon, 897 F. 2d 103,6

108 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( concl udi ng thatm er e medi cal m al pr act i ce c annotgi ve r i s e t o a vi ol at i on of the Ei ghth A m endment ) . O nl y“unnec es s aryand w ant on i nfl i ct i on of pai n” o r “ d e lib e ra te in d if

f e re n c e to th e se rio u s m e d ica l n e e d s” o f p riso n e rs is su f

f icie n tly egr egi ous t o r i s e t o t he l evel of a c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. W hi t e, 897 F. 2d at108- 09 (q u o tin g E ste lle v . G a m b le, 4 2 9 U .S . 9 7 , 1 0 3 (1 9 7 6 )). H e re , the a lleg a tio n s c o n tain e d in the C om pl ai nt , t aken a s true, as s erta s i m pl e negl i gence cl ai m atm os t , and thus , do not sta te a c laim o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n u n d e r th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t co n sid e r g ra n tin g F ra n c o -C a lza d a a n o p p o rtu n ityto amend t he compl ai nti n or dert o cur e the s t at ed def ect s . W e s ee no ne ed t o r emand t he m a tte r, h o w e v e r, b e c a u s e w e c o n c lu d e th a t a n a m e n d m e n t w o u ld h a v e b e e n f u tile . G r ay s on v. M ayvi ew St at e H os p. , 293 F. 3d 103, 108 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . H er e, no addi t i onal a lle g a tio n s w o u ld c u re th e d e f e c ts in th e C o m p la in t a s to th e s lip a n d f a ll c la im . M o re o v e r, th e B O P ’s g rie v a n c e re sp o n se s th a t F ra n c o -C a lza d a a ttac h e d to h is C o m p lain t, l ead t o the pl aus i bl e i nfer ence thatthe medi cal s t aff tr eat ed Fr anco- C al zada pr om pt l yand w i thoutunnece s s arydel ay . T he medi cal defe ndant s tr eat ed w i th hi m w i th fi r s t - ai d and s t art ed hi m on ant i bi ot i cs on the dayhe w as i nj ur ed. T he orthopedi c s peci al i s teval uat ed Fr anco- C al zada ’ s i nj ur i es on J anuary6, 2009. A ft era pr e- oper at i ve vi s i ton J anuary12, Fr anco- C al zada underw ents ur geryon J anuary15, 2009. O uri ndepende ntr evi ew r evea l s thatther e i s no ar guabl e bas i s t o chal l enge the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al or deron appea l . A ccor di ngl y , Fr anco- C al zada ’ s appea l w i l l be7

d ism issed p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(i ).