ALD
- 086 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10

- 3639

___________ CALVIN PROPST ,

Appellant

v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, Secretary of Corrections; DONALD T. VAUGHN, Eastern Regional D eputy Secretary; KATHLEEN M. ZWIERZYNA, Bureau of Standards, P ractices and Security Director; DORINA VARNER, Office of Grievances and Appeals, Chief Grievance Coordinator; ALAN B. FOGEL, Bureau of Health Care and Food Services Director; DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, Superintendent of State Correctional Institution at Graterford; LINK, Ms., Unit Manager at State Correctional at Graterford (D

- Unit); BRIAN V. COLEMAN, Superintendent of State Correctional Institution at Fayette;

CHRISTOP HER MYERS, Physician Assistant; RO BERT TRETNIK, (R.N.) Health Care Administrator; SUSAN BERRIER, (R.N.) Corrections Registered Nurse Supervisor, et al

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Ci vil Action No. 10

- cv - 00874 ) District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell

____________________________________ 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 Janu ary 13, 2011 Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

( F iled January 2 5 , 2011 )

_________ OPINION OF THE COURT

_________2

PER CURIAM

. Calvin Propst, an inmate at the State Correctio nal Institute at Fayette, appeals from
an order of the Distri ct Court dismissing sua sponte h is pro se civil rights action for failure to state a claim. For the reasons that follow, we will vacate the judgment of the
District Court and remand for further proceedings.
On March 1, 2010, Propst filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that, on July 18, 2008, while incarcerated at the State Correctional Institute at Graterford, he slipped in the shower and injured his ankle and back. He cl aims to have alerted prison officials of the danger posed by the shower‟s tile floor, but the problem was not remedied. At some later date, he was transferred to Fayette. He alleges that medical staff at Fayette did not give him proper medical attention for the injuries
sustained at Graterford. He named as defendants several prison officials, including those in charge of safety and maintenance at Graterford, as well as members of the medical staff at Fayette. The District Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. It did not give Propst an opportunity to amend, nor did it find that amendment would be futile. Propst appeals. 1
A district court shall dismiss a complaint by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis if the compla int fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28

1 We have jurisdiction to hear th is appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of a district court‟s dismissal for failure to state a claim is plenary. Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Serv., Inc. , 542 F.3d 59, 63

- 64 (3d Cir. 2008). S ummary action is warranted if an appeal presents no substantial ques tion. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.3

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). However, before proceeding with such a dismissal, the d istrict c ourt

must grant the litigant leave to amend the complaint unless any amendment would be inequitable or fu tile. See Grayson v. M ayview State Hosp. , 293 F.3d 103, 106 (3d Cir. 2002). Here, at least with regard to the denial

- of

- medical

- treatment claim, granting leave to amend would not have been inequitable or futile

. An in mate making an Eighth Amendment clai m on the basis of the denial of medical treatment must show “(1) that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to [his or her] medical needs and (2) that those needs were serious.” Rouse v. Plantier , 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Propst alleged that his fall caused arthritis, sharp pains, and stiffness in his ankle, and aggravated a preexisting back problem, causing sharp pains in his lower back and leg , and that the defendants refused to provide adequate medical treatment for these injuries

. “If „unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain‟ results as a consequence of denial or delay in the provision of adequate medical care, the medical need is of the serious nature contemplated by the eighth ame ndment.” Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v.
Lanzaro , 834 F.2d 326, 347 (3d Cir. 1987) (quoting Estelle , 429 U.S. at 103). The District Court concluded that Propst‟s alleged injuries did not meet the constitutional
standard. To the extent that the District Court meant that Propst has not alleged serious medical needs, we disagree. See Woloszyn v. Cnty. Of Lawrence , 396 F3d 314, 320 (3d Cir. 2005). But even if we did agree, it is not clear from Propst‟s allegations that
amendment would be futi le.4

The District Court may, however, have simply meant that Propst has not sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference, i.e., that the defendant “kn ew of and disregard ed an excessive risk to inmate health and safety. ” Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The allegations in Propst‟s complaint may not satisfy that standard, but they do not suggest that allowing him to amend would be futile. Propst should have been giv en the opportunity to amend his complaint to show whether he could establish t hat the
defendants acted with deliberate indifference. Accordingly, we will vacate the decision of the District Court and remand for further proceedings. Propst‟s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied as moot.