2008 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 12-5-2008 

# Ro zzelle v . Ro s si 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 . 07-4192

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_2008

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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " Ro z z e lle v

. Ros si " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 154. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/154NOT 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. 07- 4192

__________ KEI TH R OZZELLE,

Appel l ant , v. C H A R L E S R O S S I, H ea lth C are A d m inistrator; D R. FA LO R; EM SA a nd / orPRI SO N H EA LTH SER V I CE S; RA YM ON D R AM SEY

__________ A pp eal from the U nit ed S t at es 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 ( C i v. N o. 98- 1738) D i s t r i ctC our tJ udge: H onor abl e G aryL . L anca s t er

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

N ovember21, 2008

___________ B e f o re : F U E N T E S , H A R D IM A N a n d G A R T H , C i r cui tJudges ,

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber5, 2008)

__________ OP I NI ON

___________

### Pot e nt i a ls i de e ffe c t s of Ac c ut ane i nc lude e l e vat i on of l i ve r e nzy m e s and 1 

### cl inic alhepati ti s. Ap px . 52a. -2- G A R T H , C i r cui tJudge : A p p e lla n t K e ith R o z z e lle (“ R o z z e lle ” ) s u e d A p p e lle e s h e re in , 

### C h arles R o ssi (“ Ro ss i” ), heal thcareadminis trat or fo r Pennsylvania Departm ent of C orre ctions (“ DO C”) corr ec ti on alinstit

ute SCI-Gre ene; Stanle y

Falor, M.D. (“ Dr. Fal or”) , one of Ro zz el le ’s tr e at i ng phy s i c i ans ; Em e rge nc y Me di c a lSe rvi c e s As s oc i at e s ( “ EMSA” ) , an i ndepe nde nt contra ct or that

prov ided heal th careto inm at es at SC I- Gree ne; andRay

m on d R am se y ( “ Ram s e y” ) , who worke d for EMSA( col l ect i vel y“D efe ndant s ”) . R ozze l l e cl ai m s the D efe ndant s vi ol at ed hi s E i ght h and Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght s w hi l e he w as in c a rc e ra te d . R o zz ell e su ff

ers f rom sev ere cy sti c a cn e a n d all eg es th at D ef en d an ts w ere del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o hi s m edi cal needs w hen theydeni ed hi m the ac ne drug A c c u ta n e . H e c la im s th is re s u lte d in p a in f u l, o p e n le s io n s a n d p e rm a n e n t a c n e s c a rr in g . R o z z e lle w a s s u c c e ss f

u llytre a ted w ith A c c u tan e a t v a rio u s p riso n f a c ili ties u n til hi s t r ans fert o SC I - G r eene i n Sept ember , 1996. W i t hi n a s hor tt i m e, A ccut ane w as no l on ger prescr i bed or provi ded t o R ozzell e du e t o R ozzell e’s i ncreased l i ver enzy m es. 1 A ppx. 51a. A ft erD efe ndantD r . Fal ortr i ed otherdrugs , D r . Fal orr eques t ed a d e rm a to lo g yc o n s u lt. O n Ju ly2 1 , 1 9 9 8 , D r. S m a ll, th e o u tsid e d e rm a to lo g ist, co n c lu d e d th a t R o z z e lle

### A “fo rm ular y” i s a predet er mined li st of ec on om ic alm edic ations that do ct ors at 2 

### an i ns t i t ut i on m ay

pr e s c ribe ; non- form

ul ary dr ugs ar e dr ugs that do not a ppe ar on the approv ed li st

of m edic ations. App x. 40 a. P ur s u ant

t o P e nn s yl v an i aD C - A D M 8 0 4 , th e I nmat e G ri e v an c e R e v i e wS y s t e m, 3 

### there i s a thre e- st ep grie vance proces s. Firs t, an inm at e fil es a gri evance wit h a grie vance co o rd in ato r, wh o f

o rw ard s it to ano f

f icer f o r in itial rev iew . S up p . Ap p x . 1 7 a. T h is re view m ust occ ur befo reany

appealcan b e s ou gh t. Second , a fter re ce iving a writte n re spon se , the inm at e may appealthe initi aldeci si onto the s up erinte nd ent; this firs t- le vel ap p eal cano n ly

ad dress issu es wh ichw ere raisedinth e g riev an ce, an dth e inm ate “m u st appealin this m anner pri or to se eking F inalReview.”Id. The facil it y m anager noti fies the i nm at e of the r e s olut i on of the fi r s t - l e ve la ppe a l , and i f the i nm at e i s di s s at i s fi e d, he m ay pur s ue s t ep thr e e – fi na lr e vi e w (by s e ndi ng ar e que s t

t o the Chi e f He ari ng Ex aminer). Supp . App x. 18 a; 10 a. -3- coul d be cons i der ed forA ccut ane pe ndi ng bl ood anal y s i s . T he t es t s w er e norm al , s o on Ju ly2 6 , 1 9 9 8 , D r. F a lo r o rd e re d a n o n -f o rm u lar y re q u e st f

o r A c c u tan e f

ro m E M S A ; th is 2 req u est w as d en ied, as w as a su b seq u en t r eq u est. A p p x . 5 3 a. E M S A su g g ested that D r. Fal orpr es cr i be R et i n- A cr eam. R ozze l l e us ed the cr eam unt i l N ovember9, 1998, w hen D r . Fal ornot ed thatR ozze l l e’ s acne w as “contr ol l ed. ” I d. R ozze l l e w as then gi ven m edi cat ed s oap and s hampoo and B enadry l . R ozze l l e s t i l l r eques t ed A ccut ane. R o zz ell e f

il ed tw o p ri so n g ri ev an ce s, n eith er o f w h ich w ere ap p ea led. T h eyw ere 3 d e n ie d a n d R o z z e lle f

ile d s u it o n O c to b e r 2 1 , 1 9 9 8 . O n A p ril 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 , the D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t to Super i nt endentJ ohns on butdeni ed s um m aryj udgm entt o R os s i and D r . Fal or . T he D istric t C o u rt a lso d e n ied a m o tio n to d ism iss f iled b yD r. F a lo r. R o z z e lle a m e n d e d h is c o m p la in t to a d d c la im s a g a in s t E M S A a n d R a m s e y . O n A pr i l 3, 2003, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts ua s pont e di s m i s s ed R ozze l l e’ s compl ai ntfor-4-

f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B ). R o z z e lle a p p e a le d . W e i s s ued an unpubl i s hed percur i am opi ni on on O ct ober14, 2004, aff i r m i ng t he gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o J ohns on. H ow ever , w e found s uffi ci entevi dence for Ro z z e l l e t o s t a t e a c a u s e o f a c t i o n a g a i n s tDr . F a l o r , Ro s s i , E M S A, a n d Ra ms e y , a n d we rem and ed fo r fur t her proceedings. D r . Fal or , R os s i , E M SA , and R amseyj oi nt l ym oved fors um m aryj udgm enton J anuary30, 2007. T he M agi s t r at e J udge’ s r epor tand r ecomm endat i on ( “R & R ”) concl uded thatt he D efe ndant s ’ m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ents houl d be gr ant ed for f a ilu re to e x h a u s t a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s a n d b e c a u s e R o z z e lle ’s c la im s w e re m e ri tle s s . O n S e p te m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt a d o p te d th e R & R . R o z z e lle tim e ly ap p e a le d . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 3 1 a n d 1 3 4 3 . I. W e r evi ew an or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entde novo. Sut t on v. R as heed, 3 2 3 F . 3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). I n or dert o br i ng a Sect i on 1983 act i on chal l engi ng pr i s on condi t i ons , a pr i s onerm us texhaus tal l admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es , w hi ch means no re m e d ie s re m a in a v a ila b le , a n d th e p ri s o n e r h a s n o t p ro c e d u ra lly d e f a u lte d . 4 2 U .S .C . § 1997e( a) ; Por t erv. N us s l e, 534 U . S. 516, 524 ( 2002) ; Sprui l l v. G i l l i s , 372 F. 3d 218, 227- 3 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e re c o rd in c lu d e s a n a f f id a v it b yC in d yW a tso n , g rie v a n c e re v iew o f f ice r in

### Roz z e l l e c ont e nds hi s c ondi t i on i s s e ri ous e nough t o s at i s fy the s e c ond pr ong of 4 

### our i nqui ry . Thi s c ont e nt i on doe s not a ppe ar t o be di s put e d. -5- char ge of r ecor ds of appe al s fort he Penns y l vani a D O C . Supp. A ppx. 1a. A s cus t odi an of D O C r ecor ds , W at s on r evi ew ed the document s and found thatR ozze l l e “ha s not com plet ed all of the necessaryst eps i n the gri evan ce proced ure r el at i ve to tho se gr i evanc es . ” Supp. A ppx. 2a. A s s t at ed, “[h] e di d notfi l e forfi nal appea l conce r ni ng e ith e r o n e o f

th o s e g ri e v a n c e s .” Id . W e a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n tin g o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t to D r. F a lo r, R o ss i, E M S A , and R am seyon l ack o f exh aust i on groun ds. II. I n anyeventw e fi nd no E i ght h A m endmentvi ol at i on. A n E i ghth A m endment analy si s i s tw o-prong ed: ( 1) the p ers on i nfli ct i ng the inj uryw as del i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent , and ( 2) t he medi cal needs w er e obj ect i vel ys er i ous . R eynol ds v. W agner , 128 F. 3d 166, 4 1 7 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ).

“ [ W ]h e re ‘k n o w le d g e o f th e n e e d f

o r m e d ic a l c a re [ is a c c o m p a n ie d b yth e ] . . . i nt ent i onal r efus al t o pr ovi de thatcar e, ’ the del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence s t andar d has been m et. ” M o n m o u th C o u n tyC o rr. Inst. Inm ates v . L an za ro, 83 4 F . 2 d 3 2 6 , 3 4 6 (3d C ir . 1987) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . “M edi cal m al pr act i ce doe s notbecome a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on m er el ybeca us e the vi ct i m i s a pr i s oner . ” Est el l e v. G ambl e, 429 U . S. 97, 106 ( 1976) . H er e, t her e w as no i nt ent i onal r efus al t o pr ovi de ca r e forR ozze l l e’ s acne , and a-6-

m e re a lleg a tio n o f

m a lp ra c tice d o e s n o t ra ise a n iss u e o f c o n stitu tio n a l im p o rt. T h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t h a tD r . F a l o rw a s d e l i b e r a t e l y i n d i f f e r e n t . T o th e c o n t r a r y, D r . Fal ort r eat ed R ozze l l e numer ous t i m es , and he a t t empt ed t o acqui r e A ccut ane a nd th e n tr e a te d R o z z e lle w ith s u b s titu te m e d ic a tio n s u n til R o z z e lle ’s a c n e w a s c o n tr o lle d . A s w e h av e n o ted, R o zz ell e w as k ep t of f A cc u tane fo r saf

etyrea so n s. A cc o rdin g to D r. Fal or ’ s not es , D r . Fal ort houghtt he al t ernat i ve tr eatm ent s w er e s ucce s s ful . A ppx. 53a, 5 4 a . E v e n if

D r. F a lo r h a d e rr e d , s u c h a n e rr o r w o u ld m e re ly am o u n t to m a lp ra c tic e . Fur t herm or e, R ozze l l e off er s no new evi dence t o s how del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence by R os s i , E M SA , and R amsey . W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatR ozze l l e’ s compl ai nt do es not m eett he st and ard of d el i berat e i nd i fference to hi s m edical need s.