2006 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 2-14-2006 

# B ro oks v . B e ard 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 . 05-3196

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_2006

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 2006 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 " B r oo k s v . Be ar d " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1582. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1582DP S - 1 1 2 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 . 05- 3196

________________________ IS A A C B R O O K S , J R ., A ppel l ant v. J EFFR EY A . BE A RD ; FRA N K LI N J . TEN N I S; RI CH AR D E L L E R; DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RR E CT I ONS

O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 05- cv- 1041) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a lco lm M u ir S u b m itted F o r P o ssible D ism issal U n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) or P o ssible S u m m ary

A c tio n U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

J anuary26, 2006 B efor e: R O T H , FU E N T E S A N D V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: February14, 2006 )

OP I NI ON

P E R C UR I AM I s aac B r ooks , J r . , appea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort heA p p e llee s h a v e n o tifie d th is C o u rt th a t th e yw ill n o t b e p a rticip a tin g in th e a p p e a l. 1 M i d d l e Di s tr i c to f

P e n n s y l v a n i a d i s mi s s i n g h i s c o mp l a i n tb r o u g h tu n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 3 . In 2 0 0 3 , B ro o k s, w h o is c u rre n tlyin c a rc e ra ted a t th e R o c k v iew S tate C o rre c tio n a l In stitu tio n (“ S C I-R o c k v iew ” ), f iled th is c iv il righ ts a c tio n , as se rtin g E ig h th A m e n d m e n t an d n e g lig e n c e c laim s in c o n n e c tio n w ith a n in ju ryh e su sta in e d w h ile in h is cel l . B r ooks as s ert s thathi s A chi l l es t endon w as t orn bya tw o- i nch met al pi pe pr otrudi ng f ro m th e f lo o r in h is c e ll an d th a t h e d id n o t re c e iv e p ro p e r m e d ica l atte n tio n f o r th is i nj uryatthe t i m e i toccurr ed ors ubs equent l y . B r ooks s eeks m onet arydamages and in ju n c tiv e re lie f. B r ooks w as gr ant ed i n form a paupe r i s s t atus i n the D i s tr i ctC our tpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915. A s B r ooks ’ s compl ai ntnamed governm ent al offi cer s and empl oy ees as defe ndant s , the D i s tr i ctC our tcarr i ed outi t s obl i gat i on t o s cr een the compl ai ntunder28 U . S. C . § 1915A , pr i ort o s ervi ce of pr oces s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai nt a s le g a llyf

riv o lo u s u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(i), a n d B ro o k s tim e lyf iled th is a p p e a l, ag a in pr ocee di ng pr o s e. O urr evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al under§ 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) i s pl enary , and, as the al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai ntdo notappea rt o be fa ctual l yfr i vol ous , w e mustacc ept them as true al ong w i th al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s thatcan be dr aw n fr om them. See A l l ah v. Sei ver l i ng, 229 F. 3d 220, 223 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng N ami v. Fauver , 82 F. 3d 63, 65 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 )). 1T o sta te a n E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cla im b a se d o n in a d e q u a te m e d ica l trea tm e n t,

B r ooks m us tal l ege thatA ppel l ees w er e del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o hi s s er i ous m edi cal needs . See Est el l e v. G ambl e, 429 U . S. 97, 104- 105 ( 1976) ; D ur m erv. O ’ C arr ol l , 991 F. 2d 64, 67 ( 3d C i r . 1988) . B r ooks can de m ons tr at e “de l i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence ” bys how i ng th a t A p p e llee s w e re “ a w a re o f f a c ts f ro m w h ich th e in f

e re n c e c a n b e d ra w n th a t a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm exi s t s and [thatthey ] al s o [dr ew ] the i nfer ence . ” See Far m erv. B r ennan, 511 U . S. 825, 837 ( 1994) . H ow ever , beca us e thi s i s an ac t i on under § 1983, B r ooks cannotr el ys ol el yon r es pondeats uper i oras a theoryof l i abi l i ty ; r ather , he m us ts how per s onal i nvol vementbyA ppel l ees byal l egi ng per s onal di r ect i on, actual k n o w ledg e, or a cq u iesce n ce . S ee R o d e v . D ell arc iprete, 84 5 F . 2 d 1 1 9 5 , 1 2 0 7 (3d C ir . 1988) . O urr evi ew of the compl ai ntr evea l s no fac t s al l egi ng per s onal i nvol vementon t he partof A ppel l ees , w ho ar e pr i s on offi ci al s and admi ni s tr at or s . A l though the compl ai nt al l eges thatA ppel l ees r es ponded i nappr opr i at el yt o B r ooks ’ s l at er - fi l ed gr i evanc es about hi s m edi cal tr eatm ent , thes e al l egat i ons do notes t abl i s h A ppel l ees ’ i nvol vementi n the tre a tm e n t it se lf. A s a re su lt, th is c laim lac k s a n a rg u a b le b a sis in law a n d w a s p ro p e rly di s mi s s e d p ur s ua ntt o 2 8 U. S. C. § 1 91 5( e ) ( 2) ( B) ( i ) . Se e N e i t z ke v. W i l l i a ms, 49 0 U. S. 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (19 8 9 ). W e al s o agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthat , i rr es pect i ve of the ques t i on of A p p e llee s’ p e rso n a l in v o lv e m e n t, B ro o k s’s a lleg a tio n s d o n o t d e m o n stra te “ d e lib e ra te in d if f e re n c e ” a t a ll, a s th e ys ta te n o m o re th a n n e g lig e n c e . S e e D is t. C t. O p . a t 5 . B r ooks ’ s compl ai ntas s ert s thattr eatm entforhi s i nj uryw as del ay ed bythe pr i s on m edi caldepart m ent . H ow ever , the compl ai ntal s o r el at es thatw hen B r ooks w as eventual l ys een,

he r efus ed t o s i gn a ca s h s l i p as r equi r ed bypr i s on pol i cy , ther ebycaus i ng a furtherdel ay in h is tre a tm e n t. B ro o k s’s n o n c h a lan t b e h a v io r in re f u sin g to sig n th e c a sh slip b e lies h is a s s e r t i o n th a th i s i n

j u r y c o n s t i tu t e d a n “ e x c e s s i v e r i s k ” t o h i s h e a l th a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y, underm i nes anyatt empt t o s how del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence on the partof m edi cal depart m ent p e rs o n n e l, e v e n if

h e h a d n a m e d a n yo f

th e m a s d e f

e n d a n ts . S e e F a rm e r, 5 1 1 U .S . a t 8 3 7 . U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , B r ooks cannots t at e a c l ai m of del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence on t he bas i s of the del ayi n t r eatm ent . C f. M onm outh C ountyC orr . I ns t i tut i onal I nm at es v. L anza r o, 834 F. 2d 326, 346- 47 ( 3d C i r . 1987) . Si m i l ar l y , B r ooks ’ s di s agr eementw i t h t he m e d i c a l d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g f o l l o w - u p v i s i t s t o th e s p e c i a l i s ta n d p h ys i c a l th e r a p y, w i thoutm or e, does nots t at e an Ei ghth A m endmentvi ol at i on. See Sprui l l v. G i l l i s , 372 F .3 d 2 1 8 , 2 3 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). B r ooks ’ s compl ai ntal s o al l eges thatthe met al pi pe i n hi s cel l fl oorcons t i tut ed a “dange r ous condi t i on” underthe r eal pr opertyexce pt i on t o Penns y l vani a’ s Sover ei gn Im m u n ityA c t, 42 P a . C o n s. S tat. A n n . § § 8 5 2 1 -8 5 5 3 . U n d e r th is e x c e p tio n , in c e rta in ci r cumst ance s , the s t at e maybe found l i abl e fordamages caus ed by“[a ] danger ous condi t i on of C om m onw eal th agenc yr eal es t at e and s i dew al ks , i ncl udi ng C om m onw eal thow ned r eal pr operty . . . ” See 42 Pa. C . S. A . § 8522( b) ( 4) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d not s peci fi cal l yaddr es s thi s ar gum ent , hol di ng gener al l ythatB r ooks ’ s s ui tagai ns tthe Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C orr ect i ons w as barr ed bythe s t at e’ s E l eventh A m endment i m m uni ty . W e agr ee a nd not e, forcl ar i fi cat i on purpos es , thatthe r eal pr opertyexce pt i ont o s over ei gn i m m uni tydoes notappl yher e. A l though the Penns y l vani a l egi s l atur e has

c a rv e d o u t n in e e x c e p tio n s, in c lu d in g th e o n e d e sc rib e d a b o v e , to its s o v e re ig n im m u n ity fr om s ui t , the s t at e has expr es s l yr et ai ned i t s E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni tyforpurpos es of fe der al l aw s ui t s : “N othi ng cont ai ned i n thi s s ubchapt ers hal l be cons trued t o w ai ve the im m u n ityo f

th e C o m m o n w e a lth f

ro m su it i n F e d e ra l co u rts g u a ra n tee d b yth e E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t to th e C o n s titu tio n o f th e U n ite d S ta te s .” 4 2 P a . C o n s . S ta t. A n n . § 8 5 2 1 (b ). T h e re f o re , B ro o k s’s a ttem p t to in v o k e th e re a l es tate e x c e p tio n is m isp lac e d in th is law su it. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill su m m a rilya f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.