2005 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 6-23-2005 

# J ones v . F alor 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 . 04-4790

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_2005

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 2005 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 " J one s v . F alor " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 969. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/969CP S - 1 8 5 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 . 04- 4790

________________ D A M O N J O N ES, A ppel l ant v. DR . S T ANL E Y F AL OR ; BR I AN HYD E ; RO BE RT T RE T I NI K; W IL L IA M S . S T IC K M A N , II I; J E F F R E Y A . B E A R D , P h .D .; DEN NI S R. ERH AR D; CA THER I NE M CV EY; J OH N D OE; K. DI DD LE, Ph y s i c i a n As s i s t a n t ; CH I EF HEALTH CA RE PROV I DER O F S C I G R E E N E ; C H A R L E S R O S S I, F o rm er H ea lth C are A d m inistrator; SH A R O N M . B U R K S , C h ief G ri ev an ce C o o rdin ator; D R . M O R R IS H A R P E R ; T H O M A S JA C K S O N , D e p u tyS u p e rin ten d e n t; PA U L J . STO W I TZK Y , FormerD e pu tySup e r i nt e nd e nt ; LO U I S S. FO L I N O , Pr es entSuper i nt endent ; E D W A R D G . R E N D E L L , G overnor of the C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a ar e s ued i n thei ri ndi vi dual a n d o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s ; L O R I L A P I N A , P . A . , P h ys i c i a n 's

A s s i s t ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 v. N o. 04- cv- 00015) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le T erren ce F . M cV erry

_______________________________________ 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) M ar ch 31, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O , M cK E E and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J une 23, 2005)2 _______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C U R I A M. Ap p e l l a n t , Da mo n J o n e s , i s a P e n n s y l v a n i a d e a th r o w i n ma t e a tS CI - Gr e e n e . He fi l ed thi s pr o s e ac t i on pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983, cl ai m i ng thatthe numer ous named d e f e n d a n ts v io late d h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts b yf a ili n g to p ro v id e a n a d e q u a te c o u rse o f m e d ica l trea tm e n t f

o r a lef t k n e e in ju ryth a t Jo n e s a lleg e d lysu f f e re d w h ile doi ng exer ci s e i n hi s cel l i n N ovemberorD ece m berof 2000. O n J une 28, 2004, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s and/ ort o s tr i ke the C om pl ai nt , adopt i ng the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s concl us i on thatal l eged a ct s orevent s w hi ch pr e- dat e D ece m ber29, 2001, ar e barr ed underthe appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T he D i s tr i ctC our ts truck the rem aind er o f th e C o m p lai n t fo r fa il u re to c o m p lyw ith F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 8 (a ), a n d a f

f o rd e d J o n e s le a v e to a m e n d . A ft erJ ones fi l ed an A m ended Com pl ai nt , defe ndant s Fal or , L api na, D i ddl e, H arp er, an d P ri so n H ea lth S erv ices, Inc., fil ed a m o ti o n to d ism iss or fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t, cla im in g , inte r a lia, th a t th e tre a tm e n t Jo n e s re c e iv e d w a s a d e q u a te a n d n o t in vi ol at i on of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . T he def endant s att ache d J ones ’ vol um i nous m edi cal r ecor d forthe t i m e- per i od i n ques t i on as an exhi bi tt o thei rm ot i on. T he M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended thats um m aryj udgm entbe gr ant ed, not i ng thatthe medi cal r ecor ds demonstr at e thatJ ones w as aff or ded t i m el yand ade quat e tr eatm ent , i ncl udi ng corr ect i ve3

s ur geryon hi s knee, and thatther e i s no evi dence t o s ugges tthatthe i ndi vi dual m ovi ng defe ndant s ( al l pr i s on m edi cal per s onnel ) di s pl ay ed del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o a s er i ous m ed ical ne ed . O n N o v em b er 9 , 2 0 0 4 , the D istri ct C o u rtad o p ted th e M ag istrate Ju d g e’s r ecomm endat i on and ent er ed s um m aryj udgm entforFal or , L api na, D i ddl e, H arper , and Pr i s on H eal th Ser vi ces , I nc. T he r emai ni ng named defenda nt s ( al l non- m edi cal D epart m entof C orr ect i ons p e rso n n e l) f

iled a se p a ra te m o tio n to d ism iss , arg u in g th a t Jo n e s f a iled to sta te a c laim upon w hi ch r el i ef c an be gr ant ed. A ft erJ ones fi l ed a r es pons e, the M agi s tr at e J udge recom m end ed g rant i ng the m oti on as one f or sum m aryj ud gm ent, no t i ng that because J ones fai l ed t o s how del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence on the partof the medi cal per s onnel , the nonm edi cal per s onnel l i kew i s e coul d notbe found l i abl e. O n N ovember30, 2004, the D istri ct C o u rtad o p ted th e M ag istrate Ju d g e’s rec o m m en d ati o n , en tered su m m ary j udgm entforthe non- m edi cal defe ndant s , and di s m i s s ed the uns erved “J ohn D oe” defe ndantforl ack of

s ervi ce. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed J ones ’ m ot i on for re c o n sid e ra tio n , an d Jo n e s tim e lyf iled th is a p p e a l. W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e have gr ant ed J ones l eave t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s on thi s appea l . A ft era ca r eful r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e w i l l di s m i s s thi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) , w hi ch re q u ir e s th a t a n a p p e a l b e d is m is s e d if it is d e te rm in e d to b e “ f ri v o lo u s .” A s an i ni t i al m att er , the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yappl i ed the tw o- y ears t atut e of“W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overa di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entand 1 appl ythe s ame st andar d as the di s tr i ctcourt ; i . e. , w hetherther e ar e anygenui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac ts uch thata r eas onabl e j urycoul d r eturn a ver di ctforthe pl ai nt i ff[ ] . ” D ebi ec v . C ab o t C o rp., 3 5 2 F . 3 d 1 1 7 , 1 2 8 n . 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (cit ing F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c)). 4 lim itatio n s p e rio d f

o r a P e n n sy lv a n ia § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n to b a r a n yc laim p re d ica ted u p o n a c ts orevent s thatoccurr ed more than tw o y ear s pr i ort o J ones ’ fi l i ng of hi s i ni t i al C om pl ai nt on D ece m ber29, 2003. See Lake v. A rnol d, 232 F. 3d 360, 368 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . J ones fai l ed t o offe ranyvi abl e ar gum entfora t ol l i ng of the l i m i t at i ons per i od. A s t o t he eve nt s i n ques t i on thatar e nott i m e- barr ed, the r ecor d i s cl earthat su m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s p ro p e rlye n ter e d . Jo n e s’ k n e e in ju ryw a s in iti a llyid e n tifie d in 1 m i d- 2002. H e w as r efe r r ed foran M R I exami nat i on i n A ugus t2002 and found t o have a m eni s cus t ear . I n February2003, J ones w as r efe rr ed t o an orthopedi s t , w ho r ecomm ended s ur gery . T hats ur geryw as per form ed on M ar ch 31, 2003. J ones w as aff or ded pos t - oper at i ve phy s i cal ther apyand numer ous fol l ow - up vi s i t s w i th pr i s on m edi cal s t aff

. O n t hi s r ecor d, w e fi nd no evi dence fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e tr i erof fa ct c o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t th e d e f e n d a n t m e d ica l p e rso n n e l w e re d e lib e ra telyin d if f e re n t to J ones ’ needs w i th r egar d t o hi s l eftknee. A l though J ones compl ai ns pr i m ar i l yaboutt he tim in g o f h is tre a tm e n t, a ra tio n a l ju ryc o u ld n o t co n c lu d e th a t th e m e d ica l d e f e n d a n ts im p e rm iss ib lyd e n ied , d e layed , o r p re v e n ted Jo n e s f ro m re c e iv in g n e e d e d tre a tm e n t. W i th r egar d t o t he non- m edi cal defe ndant s , “[i ] f a pr i s oneri s underthe ca r e of m edi cal expert s . . . a non- m edi cal pr i s on offi ci al w i l l gener al l ybe j us t i fi ed i n bel i evi ng th a t th e p ri s o n e r i s in c a p a b le h a n d s .” S p ru ill v . G illis , 3 7 2 F .3 d 2 1 8 , 2 3 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).T h u s, “ a b se n t a r e a so n to b e liev e (o r a c tu a l k n o w led g e ) th a t p riso n d o c to rs o r th e ir

a s s is ta n ts a re m is tr e a tin g (o r n o t tr e a tin g ) a p ri s o n e r, a n o n -m e d ic a l p ri s o n o f f ic ia l . . . w ill n o t b e c h a rg e a b le w ith th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t sc ien ter re q u ire m e n t o f d e lib e ra te i ndi ffe r ence . ” I d. T he r ecor d her e r efl ect s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yappl i ed the te a c h in g s o f

S p ru ill. Forthes e r eas ons , and forthe r eas ons ful l yexpl ai ned bythe M agi s tr at e J udge and the D istri ct C o u rt , w e w il l dism iss th e a p p ea l pu rsua n t t o § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(i ).