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 8-12-2008 

# Pe rk ins v . S ch wapp a ch 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 . 08-1139

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 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 " P e rkin s v . S ch wapp a ch" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 666. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/666NOT 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. 08- 1139

___________ EM M I TT PE RK I N S, A ppel l ant

v. S CH WAP P AC H, C orr ect i onal O ffi cerSer geant

____________________________________ 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 07- cv- 02124) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M i chae l M . B ay l s on

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y31, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , FU E N T E S and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A ugus t12, 2008)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM E m m i t tPer ki ns , a Penns y l vani a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s compl ai ntand deny i ng hi s m ot i on forthe2

appoi nt m entof couns el . W e w i l l aff i r m i n part , r ever s e i n part , vaca t e i n part , and rem and for further proceedings. I. P e r k i n s f i l e d s u i ta g a i n s ta c o rr e c t i o n s o f f i c e r( S c h wa p p a c h ) u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 1983. A ccor di ng t o Per ki ns ’ s al l egat i ons , w hi ch mustbe t aken a s true forpr es ent purpos es , he i s a 68- y ear - ol d di abet i c and r equi r es i ns ul i n and otherm edi cat i on. O n t he m orni ng of D ece m ber25, 2006, he bega n l os i ng fee l i ng i n hi s arm s and expe r i enci ng n u m b n ess in h is fing erti p s, w h ich w as a sign o f d iabe ti c su g ar im b alan ce . (C o m p l. ¶ 1 1 . ) H e w a s a llo w e d o u t o f

h is h o u sin g u n it t o o b tain a b lo o d su g a r c o u n t an d in su lin , as w e ll as a medi ci ne ca l l ed G i pzi de. ( I d. ¶¶ 9, 15. ) Per ki ns “r equi r es [thi s m edi cat i on] i n or der to liv e ,” a n d w ith o u t itf a c e s “ d iab e tic c o m p lica tio n s a n d d e a th .” (I d . ¶ 9 .) H e h a d w ith hi m a “bl ue di s pens arym edi cal pas s , ” w hi ch i s gi ven t o i nm at es t o s how corr ect i ons offi cer s and “obt ai n pas s age t o the di s pens aryform edi cal tr eatm ent. . . w i thoutdel ay . ” (Id . ¶ 1 1 .) H e a lso w a s w e a rin g a “ m e d ica l ale rt” b ra c e let o n e a c h w rist “ to d e m o n stra te th a t h e is in s e ri o u s n e e d o f m e d ic a l a tte n tio n .” (I d . ¶ 1 2 .) Schw appac h, how ever , pr event ed Perki ns fr om obt ai ni ng hi s m edi cat i on. Per ki ns al l eges thatSchw appac h di d t hi s “del i ber at el y ” ( i d. ¶ 6) , and w i th “del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence to h is m e d ica l n e e d s” (¶ ¶ 2 3 , 2 4 (k )). A c c o rd in g to P e rk in s, w h e n h e w a s o n h is w a yto the “med/ l i ne, ” Schw appac h fi r s t“conf r ont ed [hi m ] w i th hos t i l i ty ” and “ t ar get ed” hi m by t el l i ng hi m , though notanyof the other30 i nm at es al s o heade d ther e, that“the med/ l i ne3

w as over, . . . w hich w asn’ttrue. ” (I d. ¶ 13 . ) Schw app ach then “d ebate[d] w i th [P erki ns] abo ut w hetherhe n eeded his m edicat i on ri gh tthen and there, ” “deb at ed w i th [P erki ns] w hether[he] w as faki ng the s er i ous nes s of nee di ng the medi cat i on, ” and f i nal l y“r efus ed t o honor[Perki ns ’ s ] m edi cal al ertbr ace l et s , and di d nothonor[hi s ] di s pens arybl ue m edi cal acc es s pas s . A l l the t i m e [Perki ns ’ s ] m edi cal s i tuat i on w as fas tdet er i or at i ng. ” (I d . ¶ 1 6 .) S c h w a p p a c h u lti m a telyo rd e re d P e rk in s to re tu rn to h is c e ll w ith o u t h is m edi cat i on. ( I d. ¶ 18. ) A ft erPer ki ns compl i ed, he had t o be “rus hed t o the pr i s on di s pens ary ” for“emer gency. . . att ent i on” bec aus e hi s bl ood- s ugarl evel “had r i s en t o an out - of- contr ol l evel of 555. ” ( I d. ¶ 19. ) Per ki ns al l eges thathe nea r l ydi ed bec aus e of the i nci dent . ( I d. ¶¶ 6, 22. ) H e fi l ed gr i evanc es , and pr i s on offi ci al s , though theydeni ed m o n etaryco m p en sati o n , d id n o t dispu te th at th e inc iden t had o cc u rred . (Id. ¶ 2 2 . ) Per ki ns s eeks m onet arydamages fr om Schw appac h. Per ki ns fi l ed hi s compl ai nti n Penns y l vani a s t at e court , butSchw appac h r emoved i tt o fede r al courtand fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) . Per ki ns r eques t ed couns el i n a mot i on foran ext ens i on of t i m e t o r es pond t o the mot i on t o di s m i s s , then l at erfi l ed a br i ef i n s uppor tof hi s m ot i on forcouns el . B yor derent er ed D ece m ber20, 2007, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntw i th pr ej udi ce a nd w i thoutgr ant i ng Per ki ns l eave t o amend. I tal s o deni ed Perki ns ’ s m ot i on forcouns el w i thoutdi s cus s i on,W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 1 di s m i s s al of the compl ai ntde novo. See Phi l l i ps v. C ountyof A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 230 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . I n conduct i ng thatr evi ew , w e “‘ acc eptal l al l egat i ons as true, co n stru e the co m p lai n t i n the ligh t m o st fav o rab le t o the p lai n ti ff , an d d eterm ine w h ethe r, underanyr eas onabl e r eadi ng of the compl ai nt , the pl ai nt i ff maybe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ’ ” I d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A l though t he “‘ fac tual al l egat i ons m us tbe enough t o r ai s e a r i ght t o rel i ef ab ov e t he spec ulat i ve level , ’” i d. at23 4 (ci t at i on om i t t ed), com plai nts fi l ed p ro se m us tbe l i ber al l ycons trued, s ee Er i cks on v. Par dus , – U . S. – , 127 S. C t . 2197, 2200 ( 2007) . W e r evi ew the deni al of a mot i on forthe appoi nt m entof couns el forabus e of d iscreti o n . S ee M o n tgo m eryv . P inch ak , 2 9 4 F . 3 d 4 9 2 , 4 9 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W e al s o not e that , even i f Perki ns ’ s al l egat i ons had notbeen s uffi ci ent , w e s ee 2 n o th in g th a t in e v ita b ly w o u ld h a v e re n d e re d f u tile a n ya m e n d m e n t o f h is c o m p la in t. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have gi ven hi m l eave t o amend befor e di s m i s s i ng the compl ai ntw i th pr ej udi ce. See Phi l l i ps , 515 F. 3d at245. 4 n o tin g o n lyth a t “[ t]h e C o u rt h a s c o n sid e re d , b u t w ill d e n y ” th e m o tio n . P e rk in s tim e ly appea l ed. 1 II. T h e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyc o n stru e d P e rk in s’s c o m p lain t to a ss e rt b o th a n E ig h th A m endmentcl ai m and vi ol at i ons of Penns y l vani a s t at e l aw . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed Per ki ns ’ s s t at e- l aw cl ai m s as barr ed bys over ei gn i m m uni ty , and w e w i l l aff i r m that asp ec t of it s ruling fo r th e re aso n s ex p lai n ed b ythe D istri ct C o u rt . W e b eli ev e, ho w ev er, th a t P e rk in s a d e q u a telya lleg e d a n E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cla im f o r d e lib e ra te in d if

f e re n c e to hi s s er i ous m edi cal needs . T o s t at e s uch a c l ai m , a pl ai nt i ff mustpl ead “ ( i ) a s er i ous m e d ica l n e e d , an d (ii) a c ts o r o m iss io n s b yp riso n o f f icia ls th a t in d ica te d e lib e ra te ind iffe ren ce to tha t nee d . ” N atale v . C am d en C ty . C o rr. F ac . , 3 1 8 F . 3 d 5 7 5 , 5 8 2 (3d C ir . 2003) . Per ki ns adequa t el ypl eade d eac h el ementher e. 25

Fi r s t , Per ki ns al l eges thathe i s di abet i c and r equi r es i ns ul i n and otherm edi cat i on t o pr eventdeath and othercompl i cat i ons . H e furtheral l eges that , as a r es ul tof the deni al o f m ed icati o n , h e re q u ir ed em erg en cytr ea tm en t and alm o st died . T h e D istri ct C o u rt a s s u me d wi th o u td e c i d i n g th a tP e r k i n s a d e q u a t e l ya l l e g e d a s e r i o u s me d i c a l n e e d . On appea l , Schw appac h ar gues thatPer ki ns fai l ed t o do s o beca us e, al though di abet es i n the a b stra c t m a yc o n stitu te a se rio u s m e d ica l n e e d , the f o c u s m u st b e o n th e sp e c if ic depr i vat i on thatPer ki ns al l eges , w hi ch Schw appac h char act er i zes as a r el at i vel ybr i ef i nt errupt i on i n an otherw i s e- adequa t e cour s e of tr eatm ent . See Sm i th v. C arpent er , 316 F. 3d 178, 185 ( 2d C i r . 2003) . T hi s ar gum ent , how ever , i gnor es Per ki ns ’ s al l egat i ons t hat h e a lm o st d ied a s a re su lt o f th a t in ter ru p tio n a n d re q u ire d e m e rg e n c ytre a tm e n t. A t th is s t age of the pr ocee di ng, thos e al l egat i ons ar e s uffi ci entt o al l ege thathe w as exper i enci ng a s er i ous m edi cal need. S e c o n d , P e rk in s a lso a d e q u a telya lleg e d th a t S c h w a p p a c h a c ted w ith d e lib e ra te i ndi ffe r ence . D el i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence r equi r es a s how i ng that“the off i ci al ‘ know s of and di s r egar ds an exc es s i ve r i s k t o i nm at e hea l th ors afe ty . ’ ” N at al e, 318 F. 3d at582 ( quot i ng Far m erv. B r ennan, 511 U . S. 825, 837 ( 1994) ) . T he off i ci al m us tbe “a w ar e of f act s fr om w hi ch the i nfer ence coul d be dr aw n thata s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm exi s t s ” and m u st a lso “ d ra w th e in f e re n c e .” Id . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t P e rk in s f a iled to p lead this elem en t bec au se h e “ d o es n o t al lege that S ch w ap p ac h w as su b jecti v elyaw are o f a n ysu b sta n tial risk o f

se rio u s h a rm to P e rk in s w h e n h e p re v e n ted h im f ro m g o in g toT he D i s tr i ctC our tci t ed tw o r eas ons fori t s concl us i on t o the contr ary , buteac h 3 r epr es ent s the appl i cat i on of t oo s tr i ngenta s t andar d atthe R ul e 12( b) ( 6) s t age. Fi r s t , t he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatthe compl ai nts ugges t s thatSchw appac h w as notaw ar e of Per ki ns ’ s m edi cal needs beca us e “Schw appac h t ol d Per ki ns he thoughtPer ki ns w as faki ng, ” w hi ch “s ugges t s thatSchw appac h s ubj ect i vel ythoughtPer ki ns w as fi ne. ” ( M em. at4. ) I n r eac hi ng thi s concl us i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tdr ew i nfer ence s i n favorof Schw appac h, notPer ki ns . Second, the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatPer ki ns di d not al l ege he “mani fes t ed outw ar d s i gns of s er i ous i l l nes s w hen he w as headi ng t o the di s pens ary , ” and thus had al l eged nothi ng thatm i ghthave putSchw appac h on not i ce of a “r i s k of s er i ous harm . ” ( I d. at4- 5. ) Per ki ns , how ever , tr i ed t o getm edi cat i on and p r e s e n t e d S c h wa p p a c h wi th a me d i c a l p a s s a n d h i s me d i c a l a l e r tb r a c e l e t s . Al th o u g h we o f c o u rse e x p re ss n o o p in io n o n th e u lti m a te is su e , tho se a lleg a tio n s m ig h t u lti m a tely al l ow Per ki ns t o pr ove thatSchw appac h actual l ythoughtthatPer ki ns had a s er i ous m edi cal need. 6 the di s pens ary . ” ( M em. at4. ) W e bel i eve, how ever , thatthi s el ementcan f ai r l ybe i nferr ed fr om Per ki ns ’ s al l egat i ons . Per ki ns al l eges , forexampl e, thatSchw appac h del i ber at el ys i ngl ed hi m out , tr eat ed hi m w i th hos t i l i ty , fal s el yt ol d hi m thatthe

“ m e d /li n e ” w a s c lo se d , an d re f u se d to a llo w h im to o b tain h is m e d ica tio n d e sp ite h is pr es ent at i on of a bl ue medi cal pas s thati s gi ven t o i nm at es t o “obt ai n pas s age t o the dis pen saryfor m edical treatm ent . . . w i tho ut del ay . ” (C om pl. ¶ 11 . ) C on strui ng these al l egat i ons l i ber al l y , w e bel i eve theyadequa t el yal l ege de l i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence . 3 P e rk in s a ls o c h a lle n g e s th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n f

o r c o u n s e l, a rul i ng thatSchw appac h does notdefe nd on appea l . I n T abr on v. G r ace , 6 F. 3d 147, 158 (3d C i r. 19 93 ), w e setforth the fram ew ork w i thin w hich cou rt s i n thi s C i rcui tm ust ev alua te m o ti o n s fo r co u n sel. C o u rt s init ial lym u st de term ine w h ethe r th e p lai n ti ff ’s cl ai m has ar guabl e mer i tand then, i f i tdoes , eval uat e s i x non- excl us i ve fa ct or s addr es s ed7

pr i m ar i l yt o t he pl ai nt i ff’ s abi l i tyt o l i t i gat e thatcl ai m . See i d. at155- 57. W e l at er p r o v i d e d f

u r th e rg u i d a n c e o n th e a p p l i c a t i o n o f th e s e f a c t o r s t o p r i s o n e r s a s s e r t i n g c l a i ms bas ed on i nadequa t e medi cal car e. See M ont gom ery , 294 F. 3d at498- 505; Parham v. Jo h n so n , 1 2 6 F . 3 d 4 5 4 , 4 5 8 -60 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). I n thi s cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notexpl ai n w hyi tdeni ed Perki ns ’ s m ot i on for couns el , s o w e ar e unabl e t o det erm i ne the bas i s on w hi ch i texer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on. For the r eas ons expl ai ned above , w e bel i eve thatPer ki ns ’ s E i ghth A m endmentcl ai m has a rg u a b le m e rit. A c c o rd in g ly , o n re m a n d , the D istric t C o u rt is d ire c ted to re -e v a lu a te Per ki ns ’ s m ot i on forcouns el i n l i ghtof thi s rul i ng and the pr i nci pl es s etfor th i n T abr on, M o n t g o me r ya n d P a r h a m. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of P e rk in s’s sta te- law c laim s, re v e rse th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f P e rk in s’s E ig h th A m endmentcl ai m , and vac at e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of Perki ns ’ s m ot i on forthe a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l.