# Brown v. Glover

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · August 23, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10412112

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 23, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10412112

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TODD ALAN BROWN, No. 4:22-CV-01154

Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)

v.

WARDEN GLOVER, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AUGUST 23, 2022
Plaintiff Todd Alan Brown is currently in pretrial detention in a state
correctional institution. Prior to being transferred into the state prison system, he
was detained at Huntingdon County Prison in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. Brown
filed the instant pro se Section 19831 action concerning the alleged medical care
(or lack thereof) he received at Huntingdon County Prison, asserting constitutional
violations against various prison officials and medical staff. Because Brown fails
to state a claim for relief against any Defendant, the Court will dismiss the
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) but will grant Brown leave to amend.

1 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 creates a private cause of action to redress constitutional
wrongs committed by state officials. The statute is not a source of substantive rights; it serves
as a mechanism for vindicating rights otherwise protected by federal law. See Gonzaga Univ.
I. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Courts are statutorily obligated to review, “as soon as practicable,” pro se

prisoner complaints targeting governmental entities, officers, or employees.2 One
basis for dismissal at the screening stage is if the complaint “fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted[.]”3 This language closely tracks Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Accordingly, courts apply the same standard to
screening a pro se prisoner complaint for sufficiency under Section 1915A(b)(1) as
they utilize when resolving a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).4
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, courts should not inquire

“whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to
offer evidence to support the claims.”5 The court must accept as true the factual
allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences from them in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff.6 In addition to the facts alleged on the face of

the complaint, the court may also consider “exhibits attached to the complaint,
matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents” attached to

2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
3 Id. § 1915A(b)(1).
4 See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 109-10 & n.11 (3d Cir. 2002); O’Brien
v. U.S. Fed. Gov’t, 763 F. App’x 157, 159 & n.5 (3d Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (nonprecedential);
cf. Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).
5 Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); see Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 66 (3d Cir.
1996).
a defendant’s motion to dismiss if the plaintiff’s claims are based upon these
documents.7

When the sufficiency of a complaint is challenged, the court must conduct a
three-step inquiry.8 At step one, the court must “tak[e] note of the elements [the]
plaintiff must plead to state a claim.”9 Second, the court should distinguish well-

pleaded factual allegations—which must be taken as true—from mere legal
conclusions, which “are not entitled to the assumption of truth” and may be
disregarded.10 Finally, the court must review the presumed-truthful allegations
“and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”11

Deciding plausibility is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”12
Because Brown proceeds pro se, his pleadings are to be liberally construed

and his complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]”13 This is particularly true
when the pro se litigant, like Brown, is incarcerated.14

7 Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Pension Benefit Guar. Corp.
v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)).
8 Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted) (footnote omitted).
9 Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009) (alterations in original)).
10 Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).
11 Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).
12 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681.
13 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations omitted).
II. DISCUSSION
Brown asserts that he was involved in an incident with police officers and

suffered serious injuries from their use of excessive force, including a hematoma,
facial contusion, broken left pinky finger, and a concussion.15 He was hospitalized,
and after he was discharged on December 21, 2021, he was taken to Huntingdon
County Prison and remained there until February 3, 2022.16

Brown alleges that he received constitutionally deficient medical care while
at Huntingdon County Prison. He avers that it took the prison 33 days to send him
to an otolaryngologist outpatient appointment that should have been scheduled

within three days after his release from the hospital.17 He maintains that he fell
unconscious “on the block” at one point but was not seen by medical or taken to
the hospital, even though his discharge orders specifically stated that he should
return to the emergency department if he lost consciousness.18 He further alleges

that it took the prison 44 days to send him to J.C. Blair Memorial Hospital to get
surgery on his pinky finger, and this delay resulted in the need for general
anesthesia so that his finger could be re-broken and set with pins.19 Brown claims

15 Doc. 1 at 5.
16 Id. at 4.
17 Id.
18 Id.
that he suffered for 44 days before he received the necessary surgery on his
finger.20

Brown appears to be raising a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment21 for
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.22 Brown names the following
defendants in his lawsuit: Warden Brad Glover, Deputy Warden Daniel Weikert,

nurse “Susan,” an unidentified “doctor” at the prison, and grievance coordinator
Lieutenant Rhone.23 Brown, however, fails to plausibly allege personal
involvement for most of these Defendants. As to the few Defendants for which he
does allege personal involvement, Brown fails to plausibly state a medical

deliberate indifference claim.
A. Personal Involvement
It is well established that, in Section 1983 actions, liability cannot be
“predicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior.”24 Rather, a Section

1983 plaintiff must aver facts that demonstrate “the defendants’ personal
involvement in the alleged misconduct.”25 Personal involvement can include direct

20 Id.
21 Because Brown is a pretrial detainee, his claims implicate the Fourteenth Amendment, not the
Eighth. See Jacobs v. Cumberland County, 8 F.4th 187, 193-94 (3d Cir. 2021); Thomas v.
Cumberland County, 749 F.3d 217, 223 n.4 (3d Cir. 2014).
22 Although Brown identifies other constitutional provisions in his complaint, see Doc. 1 at 5
(citing Eighth and First Amendments), none of them apply to the allegations or Defendants at
issue, nor are they developed in any way. The Court, therefore, focuses solely on the
Fourteenth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
23 Doc. 1 at 1-3.
24 Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988) (citations omitted); see also Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556. U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (affirming same principle in Bivens context).
wrongful conduct by a defendant, but it can also be demonstrated through
allegations of “personal direction” or of “actual knowledge and acquiescence”;

however, such averments must be made with particularity.26
Brown does not include any allegations that would establish personal
involvement in the alleged constitutional violations by Glover, Weikert, or Rhone.

As to Glover, Brown alleges only that he “talk[ed] to Glover” at some unspecified
point in time and Glover said, “If you start shit Brown I am transferring you to SCI
Smithfield.”27 Brown avers that he talked to Weikert three days before his transfer
to SCI Smithfield and Weikert responded, “Brown your lawsuit ain’t with us it’s

with the cops on what they did to you, not with the jail. Chill I’ll help you get help
I’ll look up attorneys for you.”28 These allegations are plainly insufficient to
establish personal involvement in the purported medical indifference. Brown does

not state what he “talked” about with Glover and Weikert, nor does he identify
when he spoke with Glover. Such sparse assertions fail to show knowledge of a
medical need, denial of medical care, or any other type of indifference to Brown’s
medical conditions.

Brown’s sole allegation as to Rhone is that he filed grievances and “Rhone
lied and said the case was resolved” and that Rhone “fabricated a story.”29 Again,

26 Id. (quoting Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207).
27 Doc. 1 at 4.
28 Id.
such scant allegations fall far short of establishing personal involvement in a
purported constitutional violation. Brown does not elaborate on what he

communicated in his grievances or when those grievances were filed, nor does he
assert against whom his grievances were lodged. Moreover, it is well settled that
involvement in the post-incident grievance process alone does not give rise to
Section 1983 liability.30

Nevertheless, it is possible that Brown may be able to plead additional facts
that might sufficiently state a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs as to some or all three of these Defendants. Thus, the Court will dismiss the

claims against Glover, Weikert, and Rhone but grant Brown leave to amend.
B. Alleged Constitutional Violation
As previously noted, Brown is a pretrial detainee, so his claims implicate the

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth
Amendment’s cruel-and-unusual-punishment provision. However, it does not
appear that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has established
or adhered to a different standard with respect to Fourteenth Amendment pretrial

30 See Dooley, 957 F.3d at 374 (affirming dismissal of claims against prison officials for lack of
personal involvement when officials’ “only involvement” was “their review and denial of
[plaintiff]’s grievance”); Lewis v. Wetzel, 153 F. Supp. 3d 678, 696-97 (M.D. Pa. 2015)
(collecting cases); Brooks v. Beard, 167 F. App’x 923, 925 (3d Cir. 2006) (nonprecedential);
Alexander v. Gennarini, 144 F. App’x 924, 925 (3d Cir. 2005) (nonprecedential) (explaining
that prisoner’s claims against certain defendants were “properly dismissed” because the
allegations against them “merely assert their involvement in the post-incident grievance
detainee medical indifference claims versus those raised by incarcerated
individuals under the Eighth Amendment.31 Accordingly, the Court will apply

existing Eighth Amendment jurisprudence to Brown’s Fourteenth Amendment
medical indifference claims.
In the context of prison medical care, the Eighth Amendment “requires

prison officials to provide basic medical treatment to those whom it has
incarcerated.”32 To state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
regarding inadequate medical care, a plaintiff must plausibly plead “(i) a serious
medical need, and (ii) acts or omissions by prison officials that indicate deliberate

indifference to that need.”33 A serious medical need is “one that has been
diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment or one that is so obvious that a lay
person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.”34

31 This remains so even following the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Kingsley
v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015), which established a different standard for pretrial
detainee excessive force claims. See Moore v. Luffey, 757 F. App’x 335, 340 & n.2 (3d Cir.
2019) (nonprecedential) (rejecting plaintiff’s argument to apply Kingsley’s holding to
Fourteenth Amendment medical care claim and instead analyzing under Eighth Amendment
jurisprudence); see also Parker v. Butler County, 832 F. App’x 777, 780 & n.1 (3d Cir. 2020)
(nonprecedential) (applying Eighth Amendment standard to pretrial detainee medical care
claim while acknowledging Fourteenth Amendment is source of right); Miller v. Steele-Smith,
713 F. App’x 74, 76 n.1, 78 (3d Cir. 2017) (nonprecedential) (same); Goode v. Giorla, 643 F.
App’x 127, 129 & n.3 (3d Cir. 2016) (nonprecedential) (same); Edwards v. Northampton
County, 663 F. App’x 132, 136-37 (3d Cir. 2016) (nonprecedential) (citing Natale v. Camden
Cnty Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 581 (3d Cir. 2003)).
32 Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999).
33 Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 582 (3d Cir. 2003).
Deliberate indifference by prison officials may be evidenced by intentional
refusal to provide care known to be medically necessary, delayed provision of

medical treatment for non-medical reasons, denial of prescribed medical treatment,
or denial of reasonable requests for treatment resulting in suffering or risk of
injury.35 Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is an exacting standard,
requiring a showing of “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.”36 Claims

sounding in mere medical negligence will not suffice.37
The only Defendants for which Brown includes allegations involving his
purportedly deficient medical care is nurse “Susan” and an unspecified doctor at

the prison. Yet Brown’s allegations against these Defendants do not come close to
plausibly pleading “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” His single
contention is that this nurse and doctor told Brown they “don’t know how [they]
missed [his] finger.”38 Brown has not alleged any type of intentional refusal to

provide care, denial of prescribed treatment, or denial of requests for treatment.
He simply contends that the nurse and doctor failed to properly diagnose his
broken pinky finger. Such threadbare allegations may possibly implicate medical

negligence, but they fall far short of stating a claim for deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs. Consequently, the Section 1983 claims against nurse Susan

35 See Durmer v. O’Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 68 & n.11 (3d Cir. 1993) (quoting Lanzaro, 834 F.2d
at 346).
36 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (citation omitted).
37 Rouse, 182 F.3d at 197.
and the unspecified doctor must also be dismissed. Again, leave to amend will be
granted with respect to these claims.

C. Leave to Amend
Generally, “plaintiffs who file complaints subject to dismissal under [the
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995] should receive leave to amend unless
amendment would be inequitable or futile.”39 Brown’s allegations are not

frivolous, and he identifies serious medical needs that he claims went untreated for
over a month. But Brown fails to establish personal involvement by the named
Defendants in his allegedly deficient medical care. He repeatedly states that

“Huntingdon County [Prison]” wrongfully delayed his medical treatment,40 but the
prison is not a “person” subject to Section 1983 liability,41 nor could it take any
action against Brown. He also fails to plead facts that would demonstrate

deliberate indifference by any Defendant. Nevertheless, because Brown may be
able to cure his pleading deficiencies, the Court will permit Brown to file an
amended complaint—in accordance with this Memorandum—in the event that he

39 Grayson, 293 F.3d at 114.
40 Doc. 1 at 4.
41 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989) (explaining that a state
is not a “person” for Section 1983 purposes); Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262, 264
n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming on other grounds and observing that district court properly
“dismissed Clarion County Jail as a defendant in this case,” quoting district court’s reasoning
that “‘it is well established in the Third Circuit that a prison is not a “person” subject to suit
under federal civil rights laws’”); Foye v. Wexford Health Sources Inc., 675 F. App’x 210, 215
(3d Cir. 2017) (nonprecedential) (dismissing Section 1983 claims against prison and
can aver facts that would plausibly state personal involvement and a constitutional
violation.

III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court will dismiss without prejudice Brown’s
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because it fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. Brown, if he is able, may file an amended
complaint in accordance with this Memorandum. An appropriate Order follows.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10412112. Public record. Not legal advice.