2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-27-2013

Steven Rex v. Lehigh Cty Prison

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-4299

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision 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 2013 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

"Steven Rex v. Lehigh Cty Prison" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 1073.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/1073
1

DLD-154 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-4299

___________

STEVEN REX,

Appellant

v.

LEHIGH COUNTY PRISON;

WARDEN MEISEL

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 5:12-cv-02002)

District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin

____________________________________

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

March 14, 2013

Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 27, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Steven Rex appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint 

under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s order. See Santiago v. 
2

Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 128 & n.4 (3d Cir. 2010). Because the appeal does not 

present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d 

Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

Rex, a state prisoner, filed a complaint in the District Court against Lehigh County 

Prison and its warden, Dale A. Meisel, alleging that they violated his Eighth Amendment rights 

by providing him with inadequate medical care. More specifically, he claimed that on July 8 

2011, he was involved in a motorcycle accident and he fractured his tibia and tore the 

surrounding ligaments and tendons. That night after the accident, Rex was arrested for driving 

under the influence. Because Rex was injured, the jail would not accept him and he was taken 

to Sacred Heart Hospital. He alleged that Prime Care, Inc., the company that provides medical 

treatment within the prison, was unable to handle his injury and scheduled him for outside 

medical services. Overall, Rex alleged that the defendants denied him continuing medical 

treatment and therapy and that he has been permanently disabled as a result.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss on the grounds that Lehigh Prison was not a 

legal entity that could be sued and that there were no allegations that Warden Meisel was 

involved in Rex’s medical treatment. The District Court concluded that Rex’s complaint failed 

to state a claim, but because Rex was pro se, the District Court held three telephone 

conferences on the record to determine whether Rex had additional facts that could make out a 

claim for inadequate medical care. The District Court also facilitated additional medical 

treatment for Rex, urging him to put in a sick call for requests for an MRI and for acid reflux. 

According to the transcripts of the phone conferences, Rex received an MRI and he was sent 

out for a physical therapy evaluation and given an exercise program to increase the strength in 
3

his leg. Rex also received medication for the acid reflux. After these phone conferences, the 

District Court dismissed Rex’s complaint with prejudice, finding that it would be futile to 

allow him to amend his complaint to add Lehigh County or Prime Care as defendants. Rex 

timely appealed. 

We agree with the District Court’s determination that Rex’s complaint fails to state a 

cause of action and that any leave to amend would be futile. In the context of Eighth 

Amendment claims based on medical care, a plaintiff must demonstrate deliberate indifference 

to a serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). “To act with deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs is to recklessly disregard a substantial risk of serious 

harm.” Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 330 (3d Cir. 2009). For instance, a plaintiff may make 

this showing by establishing that the defendants “intentionally den[ied] or delay[ed] medical 

care.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). However, “[w]here a prisoner has received some 

medical attention and the dispute is over the adequacy of the treatment, federal courts are 

generally reluctant to second guess medical judgments and to constitutionalize claims which 

sound in state tort law.” United States ex rel. Walker v. Fayette Cnty., 599 F.2d 573, 575 n.2 

(3d Cir. 1979) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Here, Rex has not asserted deliberate indifference on the part of prison officials.1 First, 

we agree with the District Court that Rex has not alleged any personal involvement in his 

 

1

To the extent that Rex claims Sacred Heart Hospital improperly treated his injuries, Sacred 

Heart Hospital is not run by the prison or Prime Care and, therefore, it is not a state actor for 

purposes of Rex’s Eighth Amendment claim. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 184 (3d 

Cir. 1993) (holding that a § 1983 claim has two essential elements: (1) the conduct 

complained of must be “committed by a person acting under color of state law”; and (2) this 

conduct must “deprive[] a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 
4

medical treatment by Warden Meisel. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) 

(holding that liability in a § 1983 action must be predicated on personal involvement, not on 

the basis of respondeat superior). Second, Rex has acknowledged that the prison provided him 

treatment, as evidenced by the fact that he was taken to the hospital for treatment when he was 

first arrested, and upon his request he was taken for an MRI and given medication for his acid 

reflux. We agree with the District Court that such conduct does not provide any basis for 

deliberate indifference. We are satisfied that amendment to Rex’s complaint would be futile, 

and therefore conclude that the District Court properly dismissed the complaint without 

providing leave to amend.2 See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 

2002). Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Rex’s 

complaint because the appeal presents no substantial question and we deny Rex’ motion for 

appointment of counsel. 

 

Constitution or laws of the United States” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, 

we focus on the actions of the prison officials and Prime Care in evaluating Rex’s claim. 

2 On November 6, 2012, Rex filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The 

District Court denied the motion because at that point the case was closed. In any event, the 

amendment, if allowed, would not have changed the outcome.