Court Opinion

ID: 9411951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 17:00:43.689113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:21.168384
License: Public Domain

DLD-178                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                  ___________

                                       No. 23-1639
                                       ___________

                           JEROME JUNIOR WASHINGTON,
                                           Appellant

                                             v.

              SUPERINTENDENT GILMORE; MR. HAMMER, PA-C;
        CHCA STEPHANIE WOOD, BSN, MBA, CCHP; CHCA NICHOLSON;
    DIRECTOR MS. SMITH, All being sued in his or her individual capacities and official
             capacities under the United States declared penalty of perjury
                     ____________________________________

                      On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Pennsylvania
                          (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-18-cv-01558)
                        District Judge: Honorable Lisa P. Lenihan
                       ____________________________________

         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
                                      July 20, 2023
                Before: JORDAN, CHUNG, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

                               (Opinion filed: July 28, 2023)
                                        _________

                                        OPINION *
                                        _________
PER CURIAM

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
          Pro se appellant Jerome Junior Washington, proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals

from the District Court’s judgment in favor of the Defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action. Since Washington does not present a substantial question, we will summarily

affirm.

                                              I.

          Washington alleges that the Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by

failing to provide him with adequate medical care while he was incarcerated at State

Correctional Institution (“SCI”) Greene. Washington suffers from arthritis, rectal

bleeding, hemorrhoids, glaucoma, and cataracts. Among other things, the District Court

granted a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Denise Smyth (incorrectly identified by

Washington as “Smith”) and Mark Hammer, a doctor and a certified physician’s

assistant, respectively.

          Upon review, we vacated the District Court’s judgment with respect to Smyth and

Hammer. Specifically, we noted that “Washington’s reasonable requests for hemorrhoid

treatment were allegedly deferred by Hammer for no good medical reason during

multiple sick calls as Washington’s condition deteriorated.” We also determined that

Washington had allegedly requested steroid injections for his arthritis repeatedly, but

“was told at various points that he could not be treated because another doctor was either

on vacation, had forgotten, or had quit,” and that, “accepting the factual matter in the

complaint as true, such allegations amount to ‘delayed medical treatment for non-medical

                                              2
reasons’ or ‘the denial of reasonable requests for treatment that resulted in suffering.’”

We remanded for further proceedings vis-à-vis these claims against Smyth and Hammer,

but otherwise affirmed.

       After lengthy proceedings on remand, the District Court granted a motion for

summary judgment filed by Smyth and Hammer. Washington filed a motion for

reconsideration, which the District Court denied. This appeal followed.

                                             II.

       We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review

under § 1915I(B)(ii) with respect to the grant of summary judgment. See Tri-M Grp.,

LLC v. Sharp, 638 F.3d 406, 415 (3d Cir. 2011); see also Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch.

Dist., 767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014).

       We must dismiss this appeal if we conclude that it is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915I(B)(i). We may summarily affirm the District Court’s order if we conclude that

Washington has not presented a substantial question or that subsequent precedent or a

change in circumstances warrants such action. See 3d Cir. LAR 27. 4 and IOP 10.6.

       To state a claim under § 1983 that prison medical care violated his Eighth

Amendment rights, a prisoner must point to “(i) a serious medical need and (ii) acts or

omissions by prison officials that indicate deliberate indifference to that need.” Parkell v.

Danberg, 833 F.3d 313, 337 (3d Cir. 2016). Inadequate care stemming from errors in

medical judgment is not actionable under the Eighth Amendment. Id. “Where a prisoner

                                              3
has received some amount of medical treatment, it is difficult to establish deliberate

indifference, because prison officials are afforded considerable latitude in the diagnosis

and treatment of prisoners.” Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209, 227 (3d Cir. 2017).

There is a “well-established rule that mere disagreements over medical judgment do not

state Eighth Amendment claims.” White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 110 (3d Cir. 1990).

                                            III.

       Upon review, we see no error in the District Court’s decision to grant summary

judgment in favor of Smyth and Hammer. Nothing in the record supports Washington’s

claims regarding inappropriately delayed or denied medical treatment. The record shows

that Washington received multiples instances of medical care from January to August

2018. With respect to his hemorrhoids/rectal bleeding claim, he was evaluated multiple

times during these months, and based on these evaluations the medical professionals

involved in his case pursued a reasonable course of treatment. Washington was

prescribed medication, creams, suppositories, and hemoccult cards for testing. Similarly,

Washington was treated for his arthritis, receiving evaluations, x-rays, and medication.

This did not suit Washington’s preferences, and he continued to demand specific

medications and treatments. However, Washington does not have the right to receive his

specific choice of medical care. At best, this case reflects a difference of opinion

regarding reasonable medical decisions, or a failure to diagnosis certain medical

conditions—if in fact they were present during the period relevant for this litigation,

                                             4
which is to say, January to August 2018— that would later escalate to more serious

ailments. Neither amounts to an Eighth Amendment violation. See Parkell, 833 F.3d at

337; see also White, 897 F.2d at 110.

       Accordingly, we conclude that Washington has failed to present a substantial

question, and thus we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. We deny

Washington’s motion for appointment of counsel and his motion for leave to file brief out

of time.

                                           5