2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-2-2015

Robert Saunders v. Carl Danberg

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This June 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 2015 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

"Robert Saunders v. Carl Danberg" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 544.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/544
DLD-225 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-4643

___________

ROBERT SAUNDERS,

Appellant

v.

FORMER COMMISSIONER CARL C. DANBERG; GOVERNOR JACK MARKELL; 

CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS; COMMISSIONER ROBERT COUPE; 

CONNECTIONS CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES; DELAWARE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; FORMER WARDEN PERRY PHELPS; 

DEPUTY WARDEN JAMES SCARBOROUGH; JAMES WELCH, BUREAU CHIEF; 

JOHN BRENNAN, SECURITY CHIEF; DR. LAURIE SPRAGA, MEDICAL 

DIRECTOR; MICHELLE SEWELL-JONES, DIRECTOR OF NURSING; DR. DALE 

RODGER-MORALE 

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D. Del. Civ. No. 13-cv-01276)

District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet

____________________________________

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 28, 2015

Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: June 2, 2015 )
2

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Roberts Saunders, a Delaware state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order of 

the United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissing his complaint. 

For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Saunders filed a complaint in District Court claiming a violation of his Eighth 

Amendment rights based on the denial of medical treatment. The District Court reviewed 

the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A and ruled that Saunders 

had failed to plead facts showing that the named defendants were personally involved in 

the alleged constitutional violations. The District Court dismissed the complaint, but 

allowed Saunders to amend it.1 Saunders then filed a Second Amended Complaint 

claiming the denial of medical treatment and violations of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”). The District Court ruled that 

Saunders had again failed to plead facts showing the named defendants’ personal 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

1Saunders had also sought to raise a retaliation claim in an amended complaint. The 

District Court ruled that Saunders must file a separate complaint raising this claim, which 

did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claims in his original 

complaint.
3

involvement, and that he had failed to state a claim under the ADA. The District Court 

dismissed the complaint and gave Saunders one more opportunity to amend.

Saunders filed a Third Amended Complaint, which he stated “totally rewrites the 

original Complaint.” Third Am. Compl. at 4 n.1. Saunders named as defendants 

Delaware Governor Jack Markell, former Delaware Department of Corrections (“DOC”) 

medical contractor Correct Care Solutions, former DOC Commissioner Carl Danberg, 

DOC Commissioner Robert Coupe, DOC medical service provider Connections 

Correctional Healthcare Services, the DOC, former James T. Vaughn Correctional Center 

(“VCC”) Warden Perry Phelps, VCC Deputy Warden James Scarbrough, VCC Security 

Chief John Brennan, DOC Bureau Chief James Welch, former Medical Director Dr. 

Laurie Spraga, former Director of Nursing Michelle Swell-Jones, and former Medical 

Director Dr. Dale Rodgers-Morales. 

Saunders alleged that he suffers from high blood pressure, brain tumors, a cyst on 

his kidney, degenerate disc disease, and eye problems. He averred that during the past 

two years, kidney specialist Dr. Michael Yaslow ordered that he see a urologist to treat 

his kidney condition, but that defendants Spraga, Swell-Jones, and Rodgers-Morales 

stated that other options must be sought due to the cost of such treatment. Saunders 

alleged that he is in constant pain and has uncontrolled urination. 

Saunders also alleged that he is constant pain due to degenerate disc disorders, that 

doctors conveyed years ago that his problems could be corrected with surgery, but that 

surgery was denied due to its cost. Saunders stated that the denial of surgery has resulted 
4

in a bone spur on his spine and that a MRI has been ordered to determine the extent of the 

damage. Saunders averred that prison overcrowding and attempts to cut costs are causing 

the denial of care to prisoners. He claimed violations of his Eighth Amendment rights.

Saunders also claimed violations of the ADA based on his placement by defendant 

Brennan in a housing area that was not ADA-compliant. Saunders stated that he fell in a 

shower that lacked handrails. He averred that after the fall he was placed, without any 

explanation, in administrative segregation for 45 days and then returned to the general 

population. 

The District Court dismissed Saunders’ constitutional claims against Markell, 

Danberg, Coupe, Phelps, and Scarbrough because Saunders had alleged no facts 

regarding their personal involvement, but had named them as defendants based on their 

supervisory positions. The District Court also found that Saunders’ allegations directed 

towards Spraga, Swell-Jones, and Rodgers-Morales were insufficient to state a 

constitutional claim, and that Saunders had not identified any specific policies supporting 

his claim that care was denied to reduce costs. The District Court also noted that the 

DOC is immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

With respect to Saunders’ ADA claim, the District Court stated that he had not set 

forth facts regarding his housing conditions in administrative segregation and in the 

general population thereafter, and found his allegation of an isolated instance of failing to 

accommodate insufficient to state a claim. The District Court also found frivolous any 

constitutional claims based on Saunders’ allegations that his grievances were denied or 
5

not addressed and his allegations that he was placed in administrative custody. The 

District Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii), and (iii) and 

§ 1915A(b)(1) and (2), and held that allowing further amendment of the complaint would 

be futile. This appeal followed.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review 

over the District Court’s decision. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 

1999).

We find no error in the dismissal of Saunders’ constitutional claims against 

Markell, Danberg, Coupe, Phelps, and Scarbrough because the complaint does not allege 

their personal involvement in the claimed violations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

676 (2009); Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). 

We also agree that Saunders has not stated an Eighth Amendment claim against 

Spraga, Swell-Jones, and Rodgers-Morales. To establish an Eighth Amendment violation 

based on the denial of medical care, a prisoner must demonstrate deliberate indifference 

to his serious medical needs. Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 235 (3d Cir. 2004). The 

“deliberate indifference” standard may be met where prison authorities deny a reasonable 

request for treatment and expose an inmate to undue suffering or the threat of tangible 

residual injury, or where there is knowledge of a need for care and that care is 

intentionally denied. Id. The standard may also be met where necessary treatment is 

delayed for a non-medical reason. Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999). 

Saunders alleged in his complaint that a doctor ordered that a urologist was needed 
6

to treat his kidney condition, that Spraga, Swell-Jones, and Rodgers-Morales said that he 

must seek other options due to the cost of that treatment, and that he is constant pain as a 

result. Saunders’ complaint may plead facts suggesting a possibility of liability, but 

under Iqbal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to “‘state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff 

pleads facts that allow the court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable. Id. The 

plausibility standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 

unlawfully.” Id. 

Saunders’ Third Amended Complaint lacks sufficient factual matter to allow us to 

infer more than the possibility of misconduct. Although detailed factual allegations are 

not required, a complaint does not suffice “if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of 

‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Saunders has 

pleaded no facts stating how Spraga, Swell-Jones, and Rodgers-Morales, who are 

described as former Medical Directors and the former Director of Nursing, were each 

involved in his care. He has also not alleged that no options other than treatment by a 

urologist are available. Saunders also averred that he was denied back surgery because of 

the cost, but, as noted by the District Court, Saunders does not identify any prison policy 

or other facts that might support his claim. 
7

We also agree, for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, that 

Saunders does not state a claim under the ADA, or a constitutional claim based on the 

denial of his grievances or confinement in administrative segregation. To the extent 

Saunders appeals the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel, the District Court 

did not abuse its discretion in denying this request. 

Because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will summarily 

affirm the judgment of the District Court.