# Gibson v. Mason

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · January 16, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10414153

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 16, 2024
- **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/10414153

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DiSTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DERRICK GIBSON, Civil No. 3:22-cv-1538
Plaintiff (Judge Mariani)
v .
SUPERINTENDENT BERNADETTE
MASON, et al.,
Defendants

Plaintiff Derrick Gibson (“Gibson”), an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (“DOC”), initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (Doc. 1). The matter is proceeding via an amended complaint. (Doc. 22). Named

as Defendants are several individuals employed by the DOC, Dr. Peter Baddick, Sheriff
Brian Tobin‘, and unidentified John and Jane Doe individuals. Presently pending before the
Court is Defendant Dr. Baddick’s Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss. (Doc. 45). For the reasons
set forth below, the Court will grant the motion.

1 By Memorandum and Order dated January 12, 2024, the Court granted Defendant Tobin's
motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. (Docs. 56, 57).

I. Allegations of the Amenaea Compiaint?
The allegations of the amended complaint relate to various instances of abuse
between August 2020 and September 2022 when Gibson was housed at the State
Correctional Institution at Frackville (“SCl-Frackville”), the State Correctional Institution at
Mahanoy (“SCI-Mahanoy’), and the State Correctional Institution at Phoenix (“SCI-
Phoenix”). (Doc. 22).
Gibson asserts that he was transported to the Schuylkill County Courthouse on
August 19, 2022, for a court proceeding. (/d. | 78). He alleges that the accompanying
correctional officers assaulted him and subjected him to unnecessary excessive force in the
Schuylkill County Courthouse bathroom while he was in restraints. (/d.). As a result,
Gibson asserts that he suffered from head and chest pain, a concussion, and difficulty
breathing. (/d.).
Gibson alleges that he was transported back to SCI-Frackville and was not taken to

an outside hospital. (/d. ] 79). While in the transport van, Gibson alleges that Correctional
Officers John Doe 1-2 pulled down his pants and underwear, exposing his buttocks, anus,
and genitals. (/d. 80). He maintains that these acts were humiliating and degrading. (/d.).
Once he arrived at SCl-Frackville, Gibson asserts that he was removed from the

van, in restraints, and was “suffering concussion symptoms, head, chesit and back dain.”

2 The Court only includes the allegations wat pertain to Defendant Dr. Baddick.

(Id. J 81). He maintains that his pants and underwear were still around his ankles, exposing
his private areas, and that he was transported through the facility causing further
humiliation. (Id.). Gibson was escorted to medical triage and was treated by Defendant Dr.
Baddick. (/d.). He states that Defendant Dr. Baddick pulled up his pants and underwear.
(Id.). Gibson reported a violation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA’) to Dr.
Baddick who “immediately dismissed this critical information and duty to report it saying to
SCl-Frackville officers ‘[h]e’s alright, take him back to his cell in the RHU.” (/d.). Gibson
contends that Defendant Dr. Baddick’s actions were a “malicious conspiracy.” (/d.).
Gibson avers that he reported the alleged violation of the PREA to another prison
official and was transported to the Reading Hospital “for proper investigation.” (/d. ] 82).
In September of 2022, Gibson was interviewed by DOC officials at SCl-Mahanoy
regarding his PREA complaint. (/d. 84). He maintains that the PREA allegations were not
properly investigated. (/d.).
ll. Legal Standard
A complaint must be dismissed under FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), if it does not allege
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). The plaintiff must
aver “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009).
“Though a complaint ‘does not need detailed factual allegations, ...a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” De/Rio-Mocci v. Connolly Prop.
Inc., 672 F.3d 241, 245 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In other words,
“[fJactual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Covington v. Int'l Ass’n of Approved Basketball Officials, 710 F.3d 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2013)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A court “take[s] as true all the factual
allegations in the Complaint and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those
facts, but . . . disregard|s] legal conclusions and threadbare recitals of the elements of a

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ethypharm S.A. France v.
Abbott Laboratories, 707 F.3d 223, 231, n.14 (3d Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted).
Twombly and Iqbal require [a district court] to take the following three steps to
determine the sufficiency of a complaint: First, the court must take note of the
elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim. Second, the court should
identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not
entitled to the assumption of truth. Finally, where there are well-pleaded
factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.
Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 212 (3d Cir. 2013).

“Where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not show(n] - that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted). This “plausibility” determination will be a “context-specific task that requires the
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” /d.
However, even “if a complaint is subject to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a district court
must permit a curative amendment unless such an amendment would be inequitable or
futile.” Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 245 (3d Cir. 2008).
[E]ven when plaintiff does not seek leave to amend his complaint after a
defendant moves to dismiss it, unless the district court finds that amendment
would be inequitable or futile, the court must inform the plaintiff that he or she
has leave to amend the complaint within a set period of time.

Id.
lil. Discussion
A. — Eighth Amendment Inadequate Medical Care Claim
Gibson alleges that Defendant Dr. Baddick was deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment on
prisoners. Fuentes v. Wagner, 206 F.3d 335, 344 (3d Cir. 2000). In the context of medical

care, the Eighth Amendment “requires prison officials to provide basic medical treatment to

those whom it has incarcerated.” Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999). To
establish an Eighth Amendment claim based on a prison’s denial of medical care, an inmate
must allege acts or omissions by prison officials that were sufficiently harmful to establish
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 235
(3d Cir. 2004); Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 582 (3d Cir. 2003).
The relevant inquiry is whether the defendant: (1) was subjectively deliberately indifferent
(2) to the plaintiffs objectively serious medical needs. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
834, 837 (1994): Chavarriaga v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 806 F.3d 210, 226 (3d Cir. 2015).
The “deliberate indifference” prong of the applicable Eighth Amend ment analysis
requires that the defendant actually know of and disregard “an excessive risk to inmate
health or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Circumstantial evidence can establish
subjective knowledge on the part of the defendant if it shows that the excessive risk was so
obvious that the official must have known about it. See Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d
120, 133 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842). The Third Circuit has found
deliberate indifference when a prison official: “(1) knows of a prisoner’s need for medical
treatment but intentionally refuses to provide it; (2) delays necessary medical treatment
based on a non-medical reason; or (3) prevents a prisoner from receiving needed or
recommended medical treatment.” Rouse, 182 F.3d at 197.

The second prong of the Eighth Amendment inquiry is whether the plaintiff's medical
needs were serious. 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.” Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst. Inmates v.
Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 347 (3d Cir. 1987). Not every condition is a serious medical need;
instead, the serious medical need element contemplates a condition of urgency, namely,
one that may produce death, degeneration, or extreme pain. See id.
Moreover, because only egregious acts or omissions can violate this standard, mere
medical malpractice cannot result in an Eighth Amendment violation. White v. Napoleon,
897 F.2d 103, 108-10 (3d Cir. 1990); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“[Mjedical
malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a
prisoner.”). The Supreme Court has held that negligence or inadvertence alone do not rise
to the level of a constitutional violation. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986).
Prison medical authorities are given considerable latitude in the diagnosis and
treatment of inmate patients, see Young v. Kazmerski, 266 F. App’x 191, 194 (3d Cir. 2008),
and a doctor’s disagreement with the professional judgment of another doctor is not
actionable under the Eighth Amendment. See White, 897 F.2d at 108-10. Furthermore, it is
well-settled that an inmate’s dissatisfaction with a course of medical trsatmerit, standing
alone, does not give rise to a viable Eighth Amendment claim. See Brown v. Borough of

Chambersburg, 903 F.2d 274, 278 (3d Cir. 1990) (“[A]s long as a physician exercises
professional judgment his behavior will not violate a prisoner’s constitutional rights.”);
Pearson v. Prison Health Servs., 850 F.3d 528, 535 (3d Cir. 2017) (“[W]hen medical care is
provided, we presume that the treatment of a prisoner is proper absent evidence that it
violates professional standards of care.”).
Here, Gibson fails to demonstrate that Defendant Dr. Baddick was deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs. Gibson alleges that Defendant Dr. Baddick treated
him in medical triage and determined that he did not need any additional medical treatment
before sending him to the RHU. Notably, a misdiagnosis or preference for a certain type of
treatment will not alone rise to the level of deliberate indifference. See, e.g., United States

ex rel. Walker v. Fayette County, Pennsylvania, 599 F.2d 573, 575 (3d Cir.1979): Estelle,
429 U.S. at 106 (“[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating
a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth
Amendment.”). Gibson had one encounter with Defendant Dr. Baddick. The amended
complaint demonstrates that Gibson received immediate medical attention when he arrived
back at SCl-Frackville. Defendant Dr. Baddick pulled up Gibson’s pants and underwear,
performed a medical assessment, and cleared him to return to the RHU. Gibson’s belief
that he should have received different treatment constitutes a “mere disagreement as to the

proper medical treatment,” and is not an actionable Eighth Amendment claim. Lanzaro, 834

F.2d at 346. Additionally, insofar as Gibson asserts that Defendant Dr. Baddick’s
professional judgment was deficient, this also is not enough to rise to the level of a
constitutional violation, and courts will not second guess whether a particular course of
treatment is adequate or proper. See Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 458 n.7 (3d Cir.
1997) (citing Inmates of Allegheny Cnty. Jail, 612 F.2d at 762). The Court will dismiss
Gibson’s Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim against Defendant Dr. Baddick
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
To the extent that Gibson alleges violations of the PREA, it does not provide a
private right of action and, therefore, Gibson may not assert a civil PREA claim. See
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283-85 (2002); Williams v. Wetzel, 827 F. App’x 158,
162 (3d Cir. 2020). Accordingly, this claim will be dismissed.
B. Remaining Claims against Defendant Dr. Baddick
Defendant Dr. Baddick next argues that Gibson’s claims of civil conspiracy,
retaliation, and violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection
clauses must be dismissed based on lack of personal involvement.
In order to state an actionable civil rights claim, a plaintiff must plead two essential
elements: (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color
of law, and (2) that said conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Groman v. Township of

Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 638 (3d Cir. 1995): Shaw by Strain v. Strackhouse, 920 F.2d
1135, 1141-42 (3d Cir. 1990). Individual liability can be imposed under section 1983 only if
the state actor played an “affirmative part” in the alleged misconduct and “cannot be
predicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior.” Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d
347, 353 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1998)).
“A defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs. .

.. Personal involvement can be shown through allegations of personal direction or of actual
knowledge and acquiescence.” Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207-08; see also Rizzo v. Goode, 423
U.S. 362 (1976); Atkinson v. Taylor, 316 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2003). Such allegations,
however, must be made with appropriate particularity in that a complaint must allege the
particulars of conduct, time, place, and person responsible. Evancho, 423 F.3d at 354;
Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207-08. Alleging a mere hypothesis that an individual defendant had
personal knowledge or involvement in depriving the plaintiff of his rights is insufficient to
establish personal involvement. Rode, 845 F.2d at 1208.
A review of the amended complaint reveals that the only factual allegations against
Defendant Dr. Baddick are as follows:
Defendant Dr. Baddick then pulled his pants and underwear up on him.
Plaintiff then reported a PREA allegation to Dr. Baddick who immediately
dismissed this critical information and duty to report it saying to SCI-Frackville
officers “He’s alright, take him back to his cell in the RHU.”

10

(Doc. 22 81). Gibson generally alleges that Defendant Dr. Baddick engaged in a
conspiracy and violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (/d., Counts Il, V, □□□□□
X).
Gibson’s vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy the specific pleading
requirements set forth above. He merely contends that Defendant Dr. Baddick’s actions
amounted to a “malicious conspiracy.” (Doc. 22 J 81). Gibson does not identify the
individuals that Defendant Dr. Baddick purportedly conspired with, and his conspiracy claim
is entirely conclusory and speculative in nature. Additionally, Gibson does not set forth any
allegations in support of a First Amendment retaliation claim or Fourteenth Amendment due

process and equal protection claims. Without specific factual allegations, it is impossible to
conclude that Defendant Dr. Baddick deprived Gibson of his constitutional rights. Finally,
any attempt to hold Defendant Dr. Baddick liable based on his supervisory role must fail.
(See Doc. 53, p. 7). It is well-established that officials may not be held liable for
unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. See
Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207. Defendant Dr. Baddick is entitled to dismissal from this action
based on his lack of personal involvement in these alleged violations of Gibson's rights.

11

C. Medical Negligence Claim
Defendant Dr. Baddick also moves to dismiss the state law professional negligence
claim based on Gibson’s failure to produce a written statement by an appropriate licensed
professional as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
In Pennsylvania, medical negligence, or medical malpractice, is defined as “the
unwarranted departure from generally accepted standards of medical practice resulting in
injury to a patient, including all liability-producing conduct arising from the rendition of
professional medical services.” Toogood v. Owen J. Rogal, D.D.S., P.C., 824 A.2d 1140,
1145 (Pa. 2003) (citing Hodgson v. Bigelow, 7 A.2d 338 (Pa. 1939)). The existence of an
injury, by itself, does not prove a doctor’s negligence. Mitchell v. Shikora, 209 A.3d 307,
315 (Pa. 2019) (citations omitted). Rather, to establish a cause of action for negligence
under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) a duty or
obligation recognized by law; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the
conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages. See Northwestern Mut. Life Ins.
Co. v. Babayan, 430 F.3d 121, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing In re TMI, 67 F.3d 1103, 1117 (3d
Cir. 1995)).
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.3 requires a plaintiff alleging professional
negligence to file a certificate of merit (“COM”) within 60 days of filing the complaint. PA. R.
CIV. P. 1042.3. The certificate must include one of the following: a written attestation by “an
12

appropriate licensed professional” that there is a “reasonable probability that the care, skill
or knowledge exercised or exhibited” by the defendant “fell outside acceptable professional
standards,” and that this was the cause of the plaintiffs injuries; a statement that the claim
against the defendant is based only on the professional negligence of those for whom the
defendant is responsible; or a statement that expert testimony is unnecessary for the
plaintiff's claim to proceed. PA. R. Civ. P. 1042.3(a)(1)-(3). Failure to file a certificate of
merit is fatal to a plaintiff's claim. PA. R. Clv. P. 1042.7. The requirements of Rule 1042.3

are substantive in nature and, therefore, federal courts in Pennsylvania must apply these
prerequisites of Pennsylvania law when assessing the merits of a medical malpractice
claim. See Liggon-Redding v. Estate of Sugarman, 659 F.3d 258, 262-65 (3d Cir. 2011);
Iwanejko v. Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., 249 F. App’x 938, 944 (3d Cir. 2007). This requirement
applies with equal force to counseled complaints and to pro se medical malpractice actions
brought under state law. See Hodge v. Dep't of Justice, 372 F. App’x 264, 267 (3d Cir.
2010) (affirming district court’s dismissal of medical negligence claim for failure to file a
certificate of merit).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has noted that “[b]ecause the negligence of a
physician encompasses matters not within the ordinary knowledge and experience of
laypersons[,] a medical malpractice plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the
applicable standard of care, the deviation from that standard, causation and the extent of
13

the injury.” Toogood, 824 A.2d at 1145. A very narrow exception applies “where the matter
is so simple or the lack of skill or care is so obvious as to be within the range of experience
and comprehension of even non-professional persons.” Hightower-Warren v. Silk, 698 A.2d
52, 54.1 (Pa. 1997).
On May 30, 2023, counsel for Defendant Dr. Baddick mailed Gibson a Notice of
Intent to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 1042.11. (See Doc. 44). Gibson’s complaint was filed

on or about October 3, 2022. Pursuant to Rule 1042.3, Gibson was required to “file with the
complaint or within sixty days after the filing of the complaint, a certificate of merit signed by
the attorney or party.” Gibson filed a purported COM on April 5, 2023. (Doc. 29). In his
COM, Gibson simply summarizes the language of Rule 1042.3(a)(1). (/d. at p. 1). Gibson's
COM fails to comply with the requirements of Pennsylvania Rule 1042.3. He has failed to
file a COM with an attached copy of a licensed medical professional's written statement that
there exists a reasonable probability that the care provided fell outside acceptable
professional standards. See PA. R. CIV. P. 1042.3(a)(1) & (e). Moreover, Gibson may not
evade the COM requirement by arguing that compliance with the Rule is unreasonable.
(See Doc. 53, p. 9). In proffering only his own personal, lay opinion, and reciting the
language of Rule 1042.3(a)(1), Gibson has clearly failed to substantially comply with the
requirements of Rule 1042.3(a)(1). Gibson’s failure to attach a written statement from a

14

licensed medical professional to his COM further underscores the utter lack of expert
support for his malpractice claim against Defendant Dr. Baddick.
Gibson requires expert testimony to establish that Defendant Dr. Baddick was
negligent in providing medical care. Gibson’s claim concerns issues relating to the standard
of care, which he simply cannot establish without expert testimony. See Toogood, 824 A.2d
at 1151. This is not a case where a licensed medical professional’s deviation from the
standard of care is obvious and within the realm of a layperson. See, e.g., Hakeem v.
Salaam, 260 F. App’x 432, 435 (3d Cir. 2008) (“Absent expert opinion that the [defendant's]
treatment deviated from acceptable medical standards, a reasonable fact-finder could not
conclude that the [defendant] acted negligently.”). Accordingly, Defendant Dr. Baddick’s
motion to dismiss the medical malpractice claim will be granted based on Gibson’s failure to
file a COM that substantially complies with the requirements of Rule 1042.3. See, e.g.,
Booker v. United States, 366 F. App’x 425, 427 (3d Cir. 2010) (the usual consequence for
failing to file a certificate of merit that complies with Rule 1042.3 is dismissal of the claim
without prejudice).
IV. Leave to Amend
Generally, “plaintiffs who file complaints subject to dismissal...should receive leave
to amend unless amendment would be inequitable or futile.” Grayson v. Mayview State
Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). Gibson's claims against Defendant Dr. Baddick

15

are factually and legally flawed. Moreover, because the exceptions to filing a certificate of
merit under Pennsylvania law do not apply to Gibson’s claims, his claim fails as a matter of
law. The Court thus concludes that allowing further leave to amend would be both futile and
inequitable. See Grayson, 293 F.3d at 108; see also Jones v. Unknown D.O.C. Bus Driver
& Transp. Crew, 944 F.3d 478, 483 (3d Cir. 2019) (where inmate plaintiff “has already had
two chances to tell his story...giving him further leave to amend would be futile.”).
V. Conclusion
The Court will grant Defendant Dr. Baddick’s motion (Doc. 45) to dismiss. A
separate Order shall issue.

4 Witl1
Robert D. Mariani
Dated: January Ik wo08 United States District Judge

16

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10414153. Public record. Not legal advice.