“It is well-settled that claims of negligence or medical malpractice, without some more culpable state of mind, do not constitute ‘deliberate indifference.’”
How later courts described this case
- “It is well-settled that claims of negligence or medical malpractice, without some more culpable state of mind, do not constitute ‘deliberate indifference.’”
- federal employees may be sued under Bivens in their individual capacities, subject to the qualified immunity defense
- “The Rehabilitation Act claim is functionally identical [to the ADA.”]
- “‘[i]f a prisoner is under the care of medical experts 7 ... a non-medical prison official will generally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in capable hands’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
JUAN CUEVAS, :
: CIV. NO. 20-832 (RMB-AMD)
Plaintiff :
:
v. : OPINION
:
UNITED STATES BUREAU :
OF PRISONS, et al., :
:
Defendants :
BUMB, DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Juan Cuevas was a prisoner confined in the Federal
Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey (“FCI Fort Dix”)
when he filed this civil rights action on January 27, 2020.
(Compl., ECF No. 1.) In lieu of the filing fee, Plaintiff submitted
an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. (IFP App., ECF No. 1-1.) On April 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed
a notice of change of address, indicating that he is no longer
incarcerated. Therefore, Plaintiff is no longer subject to the
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), requiring installment
payments of the civil action filing fee from his inmate trust
account. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s IFP application, as a
non-prisoner, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
I. Sua Sponte Dismissal
When a non-prisoner is permitted to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) requires
courts to review the complaint and sua sponte dismiss any claims
that are (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (3) seek monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Courts must liberally construe pleadings that are filed pro
se. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Thus, “a pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, must be held to ‘less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). A pleading must contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “To survive a
motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.) Legal conclusions, together
2
with threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, do
not suffice to state a claim. Id.
Thus, “a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to
begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at
679. “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a
complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Id. If
a complaint can be remedied by an amendment, a district court may
not dismiss the complaint with prejudice but must permit the
amendment. Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d 103, 108
(3d Cir. 2002).
II. DISCUSSION
A. The Complaint
Plaintiff named the following defendants in the complaint,
sued in their official capacities: U.S. Bureau of Prisons; David
Ortiz, Warden of FCI Fort Dix; Dr. Ravi Sood; J. Wilk, Assistant
Health Service Administrator; J. Hollingsworth, former Warden of
FCI Fort Dix. The Court accepts the following facts alleged in the
complaint as true, solely for purposes of screening the complaint
for dismissal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff is a
paraplegic who has been in custody of the United States Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) since 2002. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1-3 at 15, ¶1.) From
2002 to 2014, Plaintiff was assigned an inmate companion to assist
3
him with his wheelchair. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1-3 at 15, ¶3.) From
2014 to 2015, Plaintiff’s brother, who was also incarcerated at
FCI Fort Dix, was permitted to assist Plaintiff with his wheelchair
until he left Fort Dix in late 2015. (Id., ¶¶3, 4.)
After his brother left FCI Fort Dix, Plaintiff, on numerous
occasions, requested that Dr. Sood, J. Wilk and Warden
Hollingsworth appoint him a companion, and his requests were always
denied. (Id., ¶5.) Plaintiff explained that he has difficulty
operating his wheelchair with his arms. (Id. at 16, ¶6.) On
September 18, 2018, Plaintiff was moving from the visiting room to
his housing unit when his wheelchair became stuck in an uneven
part of the sidewalk, ejecting him from his wheelchair and breaking
both of his legs. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1-3 at 16, ¶7.) Plaintiff
alleges the accident was the result of denying his requests for an
inmate companion’s assistance and failing to maintain the walkways
for safe passage of wheelchairs. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1-3 at 16, ¶8.)
Plaintiff had surgery to repair his legs on October 4, 2018.
(Id. at 17, ¶13.) A doctor ordered that Plaintiff should not bear
weight on his legs while recovering, even for transfers in and out
of the wheelchair. (Id., ¶14.) Despite this, Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants denied his request for wheelchair assistance and
for access to a closer dining facility. (Id.) Plaintiff also
maintains that the condition of the sidewalk was known to
4
Defendants’ staff, as was the fact that there were numerous similar
defects in the sidewalk, making it dangerous for those using
wheelchairs unassisted. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1-3 at 17, ¶15.)
Plaintiff alleges violation of the Eighth Amendment and the
Americans with Disabilities Act. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1-3 at 18-19.)
B. Bivens Action
There is no statutory basis to bring a damages action against
federal employees for violation of the Constitution. Ziglar v.
Abassi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017). Thus, in Carlson v. Green, the
Supreme Court recognized an implied damages remedy where the estate
of a prisoner alleged prison officials were liable for their
deliberate indifference to prisoner’s serious medical need for
treatment of asthma, a claim that falls under the Eighth Amendment
Cruel and Unusual Punishments clause. Carlson, 446 U.S. 14 (1980).
Plaintiff’s claim is similar, that as a paraplegic he had a serious
medical need for assistance navigating his wheelchair over uneven
surfaces and prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical need. Therefore, the Court will analyze
Plaintiff’s claim under Bivens.
The Eleventh Amendment provides immunity from damages claims
against the BOP and federal employees sued in their official
capacities, absent an explicit waiver. Lewal v. Ali, 289 F. App'x
515, 516 (3d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted)). The Court will,
5
therefore, dismiss the Bivens claim against the BOP with prejudice.
Plaintiff may amend the complaint to sue federal employees under
Bivens in their individual/personal capacities, if he files an
amended complaint that establishes the elements of an Eighth
Amendment violation. See Lewal, 289 F. App’x at 516 (federal
employees may be sued under Bivens in their individual capacities,
subject to the qualified immunity defense).
To state an Eighth Amendment Claim, a Plaintiff must allege
facts indicating that defendants were deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff’s serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
104 (1976). “As long as a physician exercises professional
judgment, his or her behavior does not violate a detainee’s
constitutional rights.” Moore v. Luffey, 767 F. App'x 335, 340 (3d
Cir. 2019) (citing Brown v. Borough of Chambersburg, 903 F.2d 274,
278 (3d Cir. 1990). Deliberate indifference may exist under
circumstances “where ‘knowledge of the need for medical care [is
accompanied by the] ... intentional refusal to provide that care’
or where ‘[s]hort of absolute denial’ ... ‘necessary medical
treatment [i]s ... delayed for non-medical reasons,’ or where
‘prison authorities prevent an inmate from receiving recommended
treatment.’” Durmer v. O'Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 68 (3d Cir. 1993)
(quoting Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v.
Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir. 1987) (citations omitted)).
6
“[A]bsent a reason to believe (or actual knowledge) that prison
doctors or their assistants are mistreating (or not treating) a
prisoner, a non-medical prison official” is not deliberately
indifferent to an inmate’s serious medical need.” Spruill v.
Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 236 (3d Cir. 2004).
Even if Plaintiff had brought his Bivens claims against
Defendants Sood, Wilk, Hollingsworth and Ortiz in their individual
capacities, his allegations fail to state a claim that these
defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need
for assistance with his wheelchair. Plaintiff has not alleged that
Dr. Sood and J. Wilk did not exercise professional medical judgment
in determining that Plaintiff was able to operate his wheelchair
and transfer in and out of the chair without assistance.
Plaintiff’s disagreement with the judgment of medical
professionals does not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation.
See Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999) (“It is
well-settled that claims of negligence or medical malpractice,
without some more culpable state of mind, do not constitute
‘deliberate indifference.’”) Further, Defendants Hollingsworth and
Ortiz, as non-medical prison officials, were not deliberately
indifferent by relying on the professional medical judgment of Dr.
Sood and J. Wilk. See Thomas v. Dragovich, 142 F. App'x 33, 37 (3d
Cir. 2005) (“‘[i]f a prisoner is under the care of medical experts
7
... a non-medical prison official will generally be justified in
believing that the prisoner is in capable hands’”) (quoting
Spruill, 372 F.3d at 236.))
Plaintiff also alleges Defendants denied him a companion’s
assistance with his wheelchair after his 2018 accident and surgery,
despite a doctor’s orders that he should not bear weight on his
legs, which he must do to transfer in and out of his wheelchair.
If Plaintiff sues Dr. Sood and J. Wilk in their individual
capacities, and if he can allege facts suggesting that they denied
him assistance from a companion after his surgery for a non-medical
reason, Plaintiff may assert such a claim in an amended complaint.
The Eighth Amendment also requires prison officials to “‘take
reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates,’”
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, (1994) (quoting Hudson v.
Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526–527 (1984). “‘[A] prison official
violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met.”
Id. at 834. When the claim is for failure to prevent harm, an
inmate must first show that he was incarcerated under conditions
that posed a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer, 511 U.S. at
834. The second requirement is that the official acted with
deliberate indifferent to a prisoner’s health or safety. Id.
Mere negligence is insufficient to constitute deliberate
indifference. Id. A plaintiff must plead facts indicating that a
8
defendant “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate
health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from
which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of
serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer,
511 U.S. at 837. The Court concludes, based on the facts alleged
in the complaint, that an uneven sidewalk is not a condition that
Defendants would expect to pose a substantial risk of serious harm
to an inmate in a wheelchair. See e.g. Jardina v. Dep't of Pub.
Safety & Corr. Servs., No. CV JKB-16-1255, 2017 WL 839526, at *8
(D. Md. Mar. 3, 2017) (prisoner failed to allege subjective
component of Eighth Amendment claim, appeal dismissed and
remanded, 696 F. App'x 130 (4th Cir. 2017); see Bruton v. Gillis,
No. 3:CV-04-0083, 2008 WL 4453367, at *14 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2008)
(finding an isolated incident of injury to wheelchair-bound
prisoner on uneven sidewalk did not establish Eighth Amendment
conditions of confinement claim.) The Court will dismiss the Eighth
Amendment conditions of confinement claim without prejudice.
C. ADA Claim
Plaintiff has also asserted a claim under Title II of the
ADA for failing to provide him with a companion to assist with his
wheelchair. The Rehabilitation Act, rather than the ADA, governs
such claims against federal agencies. See Sarvis v. United States,
No. 99–0318, 2000 WL 1568230, at *2 (2d Cir. 2000) (“‘Title II of
9
the ADA is not applicable to the federal government’.... Sarvis
therefore cannot proceed against the BOP under the ADA.”) (citation
omitted); see Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 2015)
(“The Rehabilitation Act claim is functionally identical [to the
ADA.”]); see 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A), (B) (defining “public entity”
as “(A) any State or local government; (B) any department, agency,
special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or
States or local government[.]”)) Therefore, the Court will dismiss
the ADA claim with prejudice.
Even if Plaintiff files an amended complaint to bring his
claim under the Rehabilitation Act, he is required to allege facts
showing that he was precluded from participating in a program,
service, or activity by reason of his disability. See Wagoner, 778
F.3d at 592 (citing Jaros v. Ill. Dep't of Corr., 684 F.3d 667,
672 (7th Cir. 2012)). Because Plaintiff seeks money damages for
relief, he would also be required to plead the defendants acted
with deliberate indifference to a risk of violating the
Rehabilitation Act. Furgess v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., 933
F.3d 285, 288–89 (3d Cir. 2019); see Oleson v. Bureau of Prisons,
No. CIV. 09-5706 NLH, 2012 WL 6697274, at *12 (D.N.J. Dec. 21,
2012) (finding inmate who was denied an inmate companion to push
his wheelchair failed to allege he was denied participation in any
program or activity). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA claim
10
with prejudice because the statute is inapplicable to federal
agencies.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An appropriate Order
follows.
DATE: July 21, 2020
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
11